1951-06-08

Mr. J. S. Sinnott (Springiield):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a matter of public importance and a question of personal privilege. It has to do with a report appearing on page 11 of today's issue of the Montreal Gazette in which the banning of mayors and reeves as members of parliament is urged. I happen to be one. This suggestion comes from none other than the somewhat bewildered member for Assiniboia. He would deprive the electors of the right to elect or select people of their choice. He would proceed to use his dictatorial power to take away their democratic rights.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Presenting reports by standing and select committees.



SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON SOUND-AMPLIFICATION   CONCURRENCE IN REPORT OF STRIKING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. D. Tremblay (Dorchester) presented the report of the special committee to consider the question of a proposed amplification system for the House of Commons as follows:
The special committee appointed to confer with Mr. Speaker and with his assistance to prepare and report a list of members to compose a select committee of the house to consider with Mr. Speaker the matter of an amplification system for this house, begs leave to submit its report.
Your committee recommends that the said select committee will be composed, together with Mr. Speaker, of the following members:	Messrs.
Adamson, Bourget, Browne (St. John's West), Dumas, Graydon, Low, Maclnnis, Robinson, Smith (York North), Stuart (Charlotte), and Viau.
The committee further recommends that five members will constitute a quorum of the said committee, and that the said committee should have power to sit when the house is sitting.
All of which is respectfully submitted
Mr. Tremblay moved: that the report be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I should like to table copies, in
English and in French, of an order in council passed yesterday under the Emergency Powers Act to provide that warrant officers, non-commissioned officers or men who are granted commissions, who leave one of the services for the purpose of joining another of the services, and therefore under the text of the Defence Services Pension Act become discharged, will not have their defence pensions interfered with by their so doing.
There are about 170 whom it is necessary to promote to special temporary commissions for the proper functioning of this special brigade which is being organized. Under the act the taking of those temporary special commissions would terminate their right under the Defence Services Pension Act; their contributions would have to be returned to them, and that would involve complications when their temporary commissions expire.
This is one of the provisions to be made in the bill with respect to which there is a resolution on the order paper as No. 11. We had hoped that that bill would be reached and passed in time to take care of this, but we are told that the delay in commissioning these 170 men is a serious inconvenience in the organization of the special force. For that reason, because of the urgency of the matter and the fact that it may be a couple of weeks before this statute could be passed and receive royal assent, the order in council has been passed so the commissioning may be done immediately.


Mr.   Pe@: Would the Prime Minister say whether any of these men have already reached Korea?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: This is not required with respect to the 25th brigade; it is with respect to the 27th brigade, which is now being organized.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 365, respecting Canadian Slovak Benefit Society.-Mr. Brown (Essex West).
Bill No. 366, to incorporate the Missisquoi and Rouville Insurance	Company.-Mr. Gosselin.
Bill No. 367, to incorporate Co-operative Fire and Casualty Company.-Mr. Larson.
Bill No. 368, for the relief of Theresa Verna Brisson Humphreys.-Mr. Winkler.
3844	HOUSE OF
Business of the House
Bill No. 369, for the relief of Dorothy Shapiro Ram.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 370, for the relief of Ivy Grace Barnsdale Moore.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 371, for the relief of Dorothy Chaffee Caduc.-Mr. Winkler.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That on and after Monday, June 11, 1951, until the end of the session, the house shall meet at 11 o'clock in the morning of each sitting day and that, in addition to the usual intermission at six o'clock p.m., there shall also be an intermission every day from 1 to 3 o'clock p.m.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I feel sure that
at this stage of the session there will be a tendency on the part of hon. members to support this motion, which has become customary at this time of the year. But I suggest that this is an appropriate occasion to review what has happened during the present session which calls for a motion of this kind, at this time, particularly in relation to the announcement made a few days ago that it is the intention to adjourn the present session until October and then, having met, prorogue for the purpose of having a second session this year.
When the announcement was made a few days ago I urged the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to reconsider his statement- and it must be recalled that it was simply an announcement at that time. I did so in view of the fact that in the opinion of a number of members the legislation now before the house should be dealt with before this house rises. The explanation was given that it was desirable to defer consideration of the old age pension legislation until later this year. When that announcement was made, I said, and I repeat today, that I believe there are many strong reasons why that legislation should be dealt with before this house rises even for adjournment.
The passing of the old age pension legislation is not going to take very long. The members of this house have already indicated their desire to proceed with it as rapidly as possible. That was indicated in statements made earlier in the session. It was also indicated very clearly by the manner in which this house adopted, without debate and with every sign of unanimous approval, the request to Westminster for an amendment to the British North America Act.
[Mr. St. Laurent.)

Since the legislation dealing with universal pensions at seventy and over and the special legislation dealing with pensions from sixty-five to sixty-nine inclusive has met with agreement on the part of members of this house, I feel certain, and I am sure there is confidence in the minds of hon. members, that such legislation would be facilitated in every way. I can see no reason why that legislation should not be dealt with in one day, or in two days at the very outside. Therefore I see no reason why that legislation should not be dealt with before we rise for the summer.
I am not overlooking the explanation by the Prime Minister that the same plan might not be proposed were it not for the fact that other legislation requires consideration. He indicated that it was desirable to carry into effect by legislation those recommendations in the report of the transportation commission which the government is prepared to accept, and also indicated that it might be desirable this year to introduce legislation to implement some of the recommendations of the Massey commission.
So far as the recommendations of the transport commission are concerned, I concede that there will certainly not be complete unanimity in regard to the statutory interpretation of those recommendations. The same attitude will probably not be demonstrated as will be found when we are dealing with the recommendations in connection with the old age pension legislation. Nevertheless I am sure that if there is sufficient advance notice of what the legislation is intended to be, the members of this house will deal promptly and with very clear thought as to what they wish to have enacted into law when that legislation comes forward. That would not take very long, provided that hon. members have an opportunity in advance to consider the legislation. If the house is only adjourned for the summer, then it is possible, by agreement, to provide copies of the proposed legislation to hon. members and they would have a chance to consider it before we return here to examine it in the ordinary way in the house.
So far as the Massey commission report is concerned, I think that hon. members who have already read the report, or even have merely glanced through it, will realize that most of the recommendations are such that it will take some time to implement them. In any event, there are certain specific recommendations, one with regard to grants to universities and other specialized branches of education, and another with regard to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which

obviously call for consideration, either within the next few days or at any rate certainly by the beginning of next year.
So far as grants to universities are concerned, I submit that all that the Massey report has done is to confirm the opinion that has been expressed here over and over again, that grants should be made to assist the universities without delay, if our higher education is not to suffer. That being so-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: That being so, then it should be possible-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the leader of the opposition that the legislation should not be discussed at this time, nor should the reports of the Massey or transportation commission.


George Alexander Drew: I have placed before the house certain reasons why I believe the business of the house can be so facilitated as not to require a second session of parliament, where we would have a new speech from the throne and an extended debate, with time consumed in discussing matters which could well await the beginning of a regular session at the first of next year.
I come now to the necessity for a motion of this kind, a necessity which presents itself year after year. I know that members of the government do not welcome a statement along these lines, because it has been made before. The reason why we are going to be asked to sit at eleven o'clock every day and to sit every night-we are not opposing it, because we face a situation which has been forced upon us-is that there has been no direction of the business of this house from the day the house met at the beginning of this year. There has been no planning of the debates of this house. We have estimates brought up, they continue for a short time in debate, then that is stopped and they are revived some time later when a completely new debate starts. At the present time there are several departments which have been called, have been debated, then have been debated again after a short time, and will be brought before the house again.
I am quite prepared to concede that it has never been the practice in this house to follow the practice with regard to agreed schedule of debate which has been accepted at Westminster. One reason why we do not even approximate anything of that kind, one reason why members have no way of knowing in advance when any debate is to come forward, is that there is no attempt to plan in advance when important debates will
Business of the House come on. At Westminster-and, after all, we have patterned our course largely on their practice-they know a week or two weeks in advance when a debate is going to take place on any subject of major importance. The members are then able to plan their time accordingly. Members of this house certainly have demonstrated the fact that it is necessary for them to be away on a number of occasions, on duties that undoubtedly are connected with their service here; but when it is necessary for them to be away from the house on those duties it is also desirable that they be able to plan such other appointments with some knowledge of when debates will take place.
We could have disposed of all the business of this house before this time, and no such motion as this would now be necessary if there were some knowledge of when debates were going to come on. I know that it can easily be said that there are so many speeches made in the debate on the speech from the throne and on the budget, but one reason why many of those speeches are made is that there is a cynical certainty in the minds of many members of this house that the government is going to defer a lot of important items until the last, so that the very inconvenience of members may make it possible to rush through those items.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: It is all very well for members on the other side who do not like a remark of that kind, and who make noises that do not find their way into Hansard, to pretend that they do not think that is so. But I know that most of them do think it is so, because they have said so to me in discussion from time to time. Every member of this house knows perfectly well that many items of great importance are kept until the end of the session so that the very pressure of the warm days that come in the month of June is likely to make it possible to hasten discussion on what otherwise might be at some times embarrassing subjects.
So far as this motion is concerned, this house can within the next few weeks do a great deal more business than will otherwise be done if the government is prepared to indicate the sequence in which it proposes to take up business, not one day ahead, not two days ahead, but a week or two weeks ahead. " If that is done, members will know that they are going to have the opportunity to discuss a particular subject, and the business of this house will be facilitated.
On this motion we find the only appropriate opportunity to discuss the suggestions that have been made in regard to furthering the business of this house. I submit that
3846	HOUSE OF
Business of the House there is no occasion for a second session this year. Members of this house-


An hon. Member:: You did not say that
before.


George Alexander Drew: In answer to a remark that I
hear from one government supporter that I did not say that before, I did say that before. I am simply repeating what I said when this announcement was made. The members of this house are by now fully aware of the fact that this proposal has been generally accepted by the press throughout Canada, and doubtless by the people who have read that press, as a device to increase the indemnity of the members.


Mr. Cruickshank:: I rise to a point of
order, Mr. Speaker. I love to call the leader of the opposition to order. I have enough confidence in parliament and in my colleagues of all parties to believe-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon.
member state his point of order?


George Alexander Cruickshank: My point of order is
this, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that the leader of the opposition meant, in all seriousness, the suggestion he made that we are here, irrespective of party, for what we can get out of it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, Hansard will
show quite clearly what I said. What I said was that the members must be aware that the press across this country and those who read the press have drawn the conclusion-


An hon. Member:: You read only Tory
papers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: -or have drawn the inference that this is a device for double indemnity. After all, I find an editorial in the Montreal Gazette-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: What about the Globe
and Mail?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to refer to this paper, the Montreal Gazette, as one of the most responsible and most experienced publications in Canada. I see that on June 6 there was an editorial with the heading "A Case of Double Indemnity". Then in the Ottawa Journal-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Benidickson:: The Toronto Telegram. Mr. Speaker: Order.


George Alexander Drew: In the Ottawa Journal of the same date I find an editorial under the heading: "Device for Higher Indemnities". Then in the Globe and Mail-
CMr. Drew.]


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the attitude displayed by the government- and in this case I say the government because the hilarity greeting these references is being led by the members of the government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: That is not right.


Mr. Warren:: The hon. member is too modest.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I am patient and that I have no intention of being diverted, by the interruptions, from what I propose to say.
On the same day I find an editorial in the Globe and Mail under the heading "The $240,000,000 Question", and it deals with the same subject. Lest there should be any thought that I am confining my remarks only to eastern Canada, I would point out that in the Calgary Herald on May 29, much earlier than this, I find an editorial under the heading "Double Pay for Half the Effort".


William Moore Benidickson: Bring out the Toronto Telegram.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I said and I repeat that no matter what the intention may be, these and other papers-and they are not confined to those which have expressed any one political point of view-across this country have been interpreting this procedure as a device to have a double payment of indemnity simply by arranging for an adjournment and then having a second session.
I am prepared to support any proposal frankly placed before this house for the purpose of providing indemnities which will appropriately indemnify members who serve the various constituencies of Canada here in this House of Commons. But they should be discussed as indemnities and they should be paid as indemnities for a regular session each year. No matter what the intention may have been, at a time like this particularly we should not be left open, any one of us, to the suggestion that there has come from the government of Canada, at a time like this, a proposal that has as its purpose the payment of higher indemnities-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Nonsense.


George Alexander Drew: -under any device which does not state that that is the purpose.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, again I hate to rise on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, I will not sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The leader of the opposition is imputing motives. When he says, as I understand he is, that he is expecting any indemnity to be duplicated, whether it is qualified for or not, he is imputing motives on the part of the government or on the part of private members.


Mr. Wylie:: It is too bad there is not a resolution before us now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: I come to the remarks that were made after the Prime Minister made this announcement a few days ago. I was interested to hear the comment afterwards-and when I say "afterwards", I mean in this house-that this recognized the fact that membership in the House of Commons is a full-time job. It is a full-time job of representation of a constituency. But it was never intended to be a full-time job here in Ottawa; and there is a reason why it should not be. It was never intended that the members of the parliament of this country should be something in the nature of elected civil servants. It was always intended-and that was the genius of our system-that persons elected to parliament who are actively engaged in many activities in this country would be spending a considerable part of the time with the people of their own constituencies, and that during only a part of the year they would be representing their people here in the House of Commons, with the advantage of that intimate and personal contact in their own ridings which is denied if the members are sitting here most of the time. If this is to become a full-time occupation-that is, here in Ottawa-then we might easily reach the point where only those who could give up any other occupation or who were amongst that increasingly small number who are able to live on their accumulated means-


Mr. Cote (Mafapedia-Malane):: Tories.


George Alexander Drew: -would be able to be candidates. They would be the only ones who could become candidates for election to this house. I suggest that the obvious reply to that might be that in the House of Commons in Great Britain the members are sitting there- with fairly extended adjournments, it is true -throughout the whole year. But you cannot compare the situation in a country the size of Canada with that in a country like Great Britain, where, week end after week end, the people can all get back to their homes with a fair measure of convenience.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Like the members from Toronto.
Business of the House


George Alexander Drew: Yes. It is suggested that the members from Toronto are in a favoured position.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And from Guelph.


George Alexander Drew: From Guelph, from Montreal and from Quebec. They are in a favoured position because they find it easier to get home, and an arrangement of this kind is particularly unfair to members from the maritime provinces, from the Pacific coast, and even from the Fraser valley.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: It is unfair to them because they are not able to move back and forth in the same way.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We always come back, though.


George Alexander Drew: The fact is that while this motion is being discussed is a good time to review the seriousness of the proposal that is being made, and its possible effect on the future of this House of Commons. If the members of this house are in fact to be called upon to sit throughout the best part of the year, as they have before, then many of them will have to revise their opinions as to their ability to carry on other occupations and serve their people with the continuing and intimate knowledge of the affairs of their own constituencies which over the years has been regarded as such an important part of the business of representing a constituency here in the Canadian House of Commons.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Item carried.


George Alexander Drew: I take this occasion, Mr. Speaker, to present these views in the hope that the Prime Minister will review the announcement he has made, and in the hope that the government will seek to plan the business of this house for the next few weeks so that we can deal with the old age pensions legislation, clean up the business, and then if necessary adjourn in order to meet for a short time to dispose of whatever other new business may come up in the meantime.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of a group that supported the Prime Minister's contention that another session was necessary this year I cannot sit here, in view of the speech which has just been made, without giving some of the reasons why we supported the arrangement that brings about the motion now before the house.
In my opinion the leader of the opposition was not facing facts in any of the statements that he made. He is well aware of the fact,
3848	HOUSE OF
Business of the House as are other hon. members, that the business now before this house, namely, the committee work, the legislation on the order paper and all of the things that we have to handle, will keep us going night and day perhaps into July, without touching the different pieces of legislation that he mentioned specifically.
While listening to him I thought the matter over, and I think he considered very lightly the reports that have to come before the house sometime in the future. My conviction is that if we deal with all the legislation that he feels we should deal with we would not get it all through and give it the consideration to which it is entitled if we sat here until September. For example, my thinking, on the old age pension problem has led me to believe that it is going to take more than a month or two months to finalize that particular piece of legislation. The legislation dealing with universal pensions at seventy by right and the legislation dealing with the age group sixty-five to sixty-nine will go forward at the same time. Every province in Canada, with the exception of Ontario and Quebec, will have to raise additional funds in order to give effect to that legislation, if they are to accept the proposition that is being put forward by the federal government. What does that mean? It means that it is going to be necessary to have a dominion-provincial conference to determine where the provinces who have not the additional finances necessary to meet the obligation are to get that money. You cannot hold a dominion-provincial conference between now and the end of June, and that is the fact of the matter. That is what has to take place.
Ontario and Quebec may be ready to go ahead with it. Unfortunately, too many people in this house think in terms of their own provinces. In my opinion the old age pension legislation cannot be finalized before the October session. If the leader of the opposition is as anxious as he makes out that the old age pensioners should receive that money with equality as between the provinces, then he will have to agree that the only way to bring it about is to allow sufficient time to do a reasonable job as it affects the country as a whole.
The leader of the opposition mentioned the Turgeon report. It consists of at least 500 pages, and deals with one of the most complicated problems in this country, namely, freight rates. The adoption of that report means that for a long time we will be setting up machinery with regard to freight rates that will affect the economy of this country for a long time to come. It will affect the eastern and western part of the country to


the extent that they will be able to find markets at reasonable freight rates within the rest of the dominion. It is a report that requires a long and detailed examination, and we would not be able to give it that examination if we sat through until September.
It is not good enough merely to glance at this report. Every hon. member has the responsibility of analysing it, of going through the figures and ascertaining for himself how it will affect the people whom he represents in this house.
Then there is the Massey report. It is a very technical report. It suggests the setting of the culture of this country for the next fifty years. It is something we badly need. We have not any at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Gillis: My hon. friends can laugh, but I will challenge anyone in this house to show me where we have any such recognized thing as Canadian culture-


Mr. Martin:: In Sydney, Nova Scotia.


Clarence Gillis: -or Canadian literature, or Canadian art. When I have finished my speech some hon. member in this house can get up and point out where we have any-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps a discussion on that question may be reserved for a future occasion.


Clarence Gillis: As I was pointing out, the Massey report consists of 550 pages. It will take more than the average member of this house to analyse it. It is a job that has to be done by technicians, librarians, research people and other who are familiar with that field. You are not going to be able to do that by the end of June and give it the examination that it deserves.
Then there is the seaway project. A billion dollars of the taxpayers' money is to be spent on that. It is a project that will affect Canada as a whole in different ways from province to province. If hon. members are earnest about their responsibilities, this is a project which they should examine very carefully, to find out whether we would get back any return on the investment that Canadians would be asked to make. In the items and reports that I have mentioned there are long range plans for Canada, and they are plans which will take a full session of this house if a proper analysis is made of them.
In my opinion the leader of the opposition was pressured into the statement he made, by newspaper reports and newspaper editorials. I hope neither the leader of the opposition nor members of the government

or any other members of the house will ever get into the state of mind where they are going to allow someone outside the house to mould their opinion on legislation for which the government has to take responsibility. My conception of the speech of the leader of the opposition was as I say, that he was pressured into that position by these newspaper reports. I do not think it is a responsible position for a person to take, especially one who at some time aspires to form a government in this country.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I do not often have occasion to take issue with the hon. member for Cape Breton South, but I do want to point out that I objected to this procedure before any of these editorials appeared. I made my position clear at that time.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No excuses.


Clarence Gillis: I was merely commenting on the position taken by the leader of the opposition in the house today, and his argument about having read1 those newspaper reports.
The other point I wish to make is one I do not wish to discuss at length now, because some time I think there will be a full-dress debate on the subject. I refer to this job of being a member of parliament, and its being a full-time job. I recognized that in 1940. It has been a full-time job for me since I entered the House of Commons. I think of members of the house who accepted the position on the basis of what it was in 1939 or 1935-that it was a place where one could come for two or three months to get away from his business, have a rest and make a lot of business contacts. The member who does that now must make up his mind whether he will work here or work somewhere else. I am doing now what I think every member of this House of Commons should do; and any member who has not the time to come here and sit eight or nine months if necessary, to do the business of the House of Commons- well, my advice to him is to go back to his riding, attend to his business and allow someone else to come here who is more interested in the welfare of Canada than he is.
I have no illusions on this question. Some of my lawyer friends around-I can understand why they would want to get back home, and I do not want to get into a personal argument; but if they want to keep chirping in and disagreeing, I am prepared to make an analysis of that position.
I commend the government for the stand it has taken at this time. It is the first time since I entered the house in 1940' that I have known what I was doing. There are a lot of members sitting immediately to my right who 80709-245J
Business of the House do not know what they are doing even yet.
It is the first time a prime minister of this country has advised members of the House of Commons, well in advance, that he was going to try to clean up the immediate business of the House of Commons that could be cleaned up, as soon as it could be done, and has indicated that a large amount of important legislation that could not be dealt with at this time, and given due consideration, was to be allowed to stand, and that we would be called back here for the purpose of dealing with that legislation.
It is the first time since I have been here that I have known that I am going home and that I can stay there until October, and that I will come back here in October. In my opinion it is a good development; and I think that instead of the criticism, recriminations and accusations based upon assumptions, suspicions and editorials, the Prime Minister should be commended upon his honest approach to this problem.
The monetary aspect of this matter I will not consider. I am not mercenary. I demonstated when I came to the House of Commons that I was prepared to come here for $4,000 a year. I am still working full time for what I am getting, and I will continue to work full time for what I am getting. I do not want to run home and sell any hardware or anything else. I am anxious to stay here, and I am prepared to do so. I am not concerned about the monetary aspect of the matter. I know that perhaps the fellow who wants to run home at the end of June and stay there until next January might be able to make $12,000. But that aspect of it does not [DOT] concern me at all, and I do not think it concerns the people of Canada.
I would point out to the leader of the opposition, on this question of monetary returns, that members of the House of Commons, in terms of business office hours and the hours of industrial workers, are working twelve months in six. There is no other group of individuals in this country that works until eleven o'clock at night. The trade union movement from which I come would scorn the attitude we take in the House of Commons with regard to hours, social conditions and recreation. They do not ask their employees to work for peanuts, and they do not want them to work all night, either. The average trade union leader in this country today is paid twice as much money as the average member of parliament, and he has a full-time expense account. The worker in a mine, a steel plant, or a textile mill does not want to place his representative in such a position that he has to lose sleep and deprive himself of recreation, or stay in

Business of the House a cheap rooming house or a cheap hotel. He wants his representative to have the best.
There is one thing I am sure of, and that is that the people I represent will never say to the government: You are paying that member too much money. The story I have always got from my people is: "How do you get by on it?" That is the attitude they take. And I think that raising this monetary consideration, in a forum such as this, having regard to the position members of the House of Commons occupy, in one of the highest offices in the country that can be given, voluntarily, by the people in the ridings, is small potatoes. It certainly is not supported by the average Canadian citizen.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fori William):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to place on record two reasons wliy the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) should be supported.
I have been surprised many times that there has not been some form of closure to cut out these long speeches, and so much repetition. I believe this motion will tend toward shorter speeches, fewer words, and greater thought.
The second reason why we should have morning sittings is that our volume of mail is nothing like it was in the last four months; therefore we have more time to sit in the mornings.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose any member of the house entertains any illusions as to what will be the effect of the adoption of this motion. We are working hard now, with committees meeting as they have been, and the long hours all of us are putting in. This motion will mean an increase in those hours and an increase in the work, and it will make it increasingly difficult, for opposition parties particularly, to man the committees, so many of which are sitting at the same time. Nevertheless, I think all of us are prepared to accept any reasonable expedient for pushing ahead the business of the house and doing as best we can the work we were sent here to do.
We shall not complain of long hours, fourteen hours a day, or of hard work as long as we have the satisfaction of doing the country's business. But I commend my leader with all my heart for having today brought into the realm of discussion in this debate some of the things that were said in the house on Monday last, June 4, concerning the duties of members of parliament, the proper length of sessions, the method of proper organization of the work of the house, and kindred questions.
fMr. Gillis.l
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I had hoped on Monday to have the opportunity to comment on some of the things that were said in that discussion, and I claim the opportunity as a private member speaking for myself to do so now. On that occasion the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said, as reported at page 3668 of Hansard:
The experience we have had over the last several years, particularly since the beginning of the war, clearly indicates that membership in this House of Commons can no longer be regarded as something in the nature of a sideline to a particular profession or business. Membership in the House of Commons today is a full-time position, and members must devote their entire time, sooner or later, to the business of the country.
Let those on the other side of the house who have been engaging in very noisy displays today indicate that they subscribe to sentiments of that kind, because those who have been noisiest in the chamber today will be the first to tell you outside the chamber that they are not here to spend twelve months a year sitting in this house.


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: Speak for yourself.


Mr. Coldwell:: That is not what I meant.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member says that is not what he meant. I take his words as they stand and I say to members of this house that, in the light of the duties that are cast upon members, with long sessions, long hours and hard work, nobody can say that being a member of the House of Commons is a sideline for anybody in this house today. For anybody who takes his duties as a member of the house seriously, I defy anyone to say that his duties can be regarded, or are in their nature, or are regarded by any of us as a sideline to his particular calling in life. Any assertion of that kind just does not fit the facts.


Major James William Coldwell: Then it is a full-time job.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, it is not. There is a fine sample of the kind of fallacies with which the speech of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) abounded this afternoon, and I am going to deal with some of them.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said on Monday last: "Membership in the House of Commons today is a full-time position." I entirely refute that statement, and I say to the house that if the time ever comes when the house accepts the view that membership is a full-time position you will thereby automatically be closing the doors of public life, of public careers, to a great many people who cannot afford to take the risks and insecurity of public life. What does it mean? It means that the avenue of public

service in the House of Commons will be open only to those who are possessed of independent means-


Mr. Rowe:: Or are no good for anything else.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -or those who somehow, by reason of not having family responsibilities, or not having-


William Earl Rowe: Any other iob.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is realism. Membership in the House of Commons will be open only to those who are fortunate enough to be so independent financially that they can give twelve months a year full time to their work as members of parliament or to those who have no family responsibilities and can somehow get along on the somewhat meagre amount that is left out of the sessional indemnity after the expenses and cost of keeping up two establishments and the other financial burdens of public office are met. There is nothing that can be more antidemocratic in its conception than anything which will confine public life to people who are on the one hand possessed of independent means and are completely independent of any financial worries, or to those on the other hand who do not have the responsibilities that most of us have, and somehow can eke out an existence on what may be left out of the sessional indemnity.
Sir, the strength of democracy and the strength of this House of Commons is that there are in this house people drawn from all walks of life. Every aspect of Canadian life in every part of the country is represented in the house, and the strength of this House of Commons is to be measured also in terms of the sum total of the experience which 262 members sitting in the house bring to the discharge of their duties. That is the reason why the experience of members in this house, contributed through debates in the house, contributed through discussions in committees, is so vitally important to the functioning of democracy. If the time ever comes when members of parliament are expected to sever themselves entirely from their other callings and take these risks that go with public life, these risks to their whole economic future, then I say to you, sir, that we will have taken a retrograde step, and democracy in this country will pay for it.
What we must do in shaping the course of parliamentary affairs and parliamentary work in the future is to try to see to it that the doors of public life are not closed to people who, having family responsibilities and
Business of the House responsibilities in other respects, are nevertheless capable of making a most valuable contribution to public life in the House of Commons. If you shut off from public service people bearing these responsibilities, then make no mistake about it, democracy will pay the price in Canada.
How do we go about achieving that purpose? Let me say at once that I do not think the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) shares the point of view expressed by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. It is true that the Prime Minister has never sat in the house as a private member, and he does not know from firsthand experience the problems that face private members. Naturally when one becomes a member of the government he gives his full time to his position, and the compensation is at least intended to bear some resemblance to full-time responsibility. But I think the Prime Minister has some knowledge of the difficulties faced by private members in trying to discharge their duties. I think he has an appreciation also of the importance of keeping the doors of public service open to people in all walks of life, regardless of their means.
I want to say this concerning the proposal to hold a second session. There is not one of us who relishes a protracted session into the summer with its heat; nevertheless I say to you, sir, that is preferable to coming back here in the fall to face a session then. Make no mistake about it. Experience cannot fail to be a sure guide. It should teach us that when we come back the debates will be longer than they would have been if we had continued into the summer. Nobody will relish sitting in July. Nevertheless I say that as between these two choices it is the preferable choice.
I go further and I say that, as to the broader problem of making public life, a public career or public service possible for people who have heavy responsibilities to bear outside this house, two sessions a year are no answer. Whether you pay one indemnity or whether you pay two, that is not the way to handle this problem. It is not a question of indemnity. It is not a question of two sessions a year, and I would not be speaking today if I were not prepared to make some concrete proposals that would enable-


Clarence Gillis: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member will not interrupt in the middle of a sentence, I shall be very glad to.
3852	HOUSE OF
Business of the House Mr. Gillis: It is hard to pick out your sentences.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Whether or not the hon. member agrees with these remarks, as I have indicated I shall be glad to take his questions when I have finished the sentence or thought that I was just in the midst of expressing. I always welcome his questions and observations, as he well knows. But, Mr. Speaker, holding two sessions a year is not the way to meet this problem. I would not be speaking today unless I were prepared to make some concrete proposals with a view to meeting this problem, which is a problem for every member of this house, because I question very much whether many hon. members relish the idea of two sessions a year. We have had two sessions now for the last two years. This will make three years in a row. Once these things are begun they have a habit of sticking; and I am very much concerned over the effect that two sessions a year, carried on year after year, will have on the minds of many in this country who might otherwise be prepared to offer themselves as candidates for public office and who are capable of making a very effective contribution. Now I will be glad to answer my hon. friend's question.


Clarence Gillis: I was just wondering whether the hon. member could inform me if under the Ontario judicial system they have fall assizes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are sittings of the Supreme Court of Ontario for ten months of the year, and I doubt very much if my hon. friend was unaware of that fact. If he possesses the fitness for public office which I have always considered him to possess I am sure he would know that simple and elementary fact without interposing such a question.


Clarence Gillis: The point I was making-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I know the point you were making.


Clarence Gillis: -was that there might be a question of personal interest.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is a sample. 1 thought the hon. member would observe the rules that gentlemen in this house follow-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and would refrain from suggestions of that kind. If the problem of being away from home, from family and from other responsibilities for long periods of the year does not create difficulties for the hon. member I am sure it does for most people in this house. If it is a matter of selfinterest to most of us in that we are separated from our families for long periods-


and this applies to members from western Canada and the far east more than to most of us who come from central Canada-then I say there is self-interest in this for every member.
Therefore I say that the way to have the business of this house done without putting additional obstacles in the way of people giving themselves to public service and making a valuable contribution to this country is to so organize the business of the house that it can be done effectively, efficiently and within a proper time.
I said I would not be speaking today if I were not prepared to make some suggestions to that effect, and I do so because I believe the holding of two sessions a year is not the answer to the problem. The answer is to modernize our procedure and expedite our business so it can be done within a reasonable compass of time; and I am convinced that this is possible. I have some suggestions to offer. I do not pretend that these are the only suggestions that can be made, nor do I pretend that they are altogether new.
In the first place, I believe we can contribute greatly toward expediting the work of the house and the better transaction of our business if we revise the hours of sitting. It was common knowledge to those who were in the last house that the then prime minister, the late Mr. Mackenzie King, did not favour the idea of the house meeting earlier than three o'clock, p.m., under ordinary circumstances. It was hoped that when the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) took over he would consider this question of the hours of sitting and try, with the general co-operation of hon. members and the size of the following he has in this house, to introduce some sanity into the hours of sitting. Here we are, sitting from three o'clock in the afternoon until eleven o'clock at night, the most absurd arrangement of hours imaginable. If the house would get down to some reasonable system, like starting at one o'clock in the afternoon and sitting until seven, we would pick up some time on our present total hours of sittings, and would transact a great deal more business than we do under the present hours. Every hon. member knows that by nine-thirty or ten o'clock at night many hon. members are fagged out, and we make relatively little progress in those late hours of sitting. It would also contribute to the health of hon. members; and I am sure that with better health and greater vigour we would do our work better and faster.

Then I think something could be done in regard to some of the specific debates. I believe if we introduced the sort of sanity I have suggested into the hours of sitting, our committees could meet earlier in the morning. At the present time we cannot call a committee meeting before eleven o'clock in the morning because we are sitting so late at night. If we had reasonable hours of sitting we would be able to get our committee work under way at a proper hour in the morning, and more work would be done because we would be fresher.
It seems to me we put the cart before the horse in this matter. At the time of the session when the committees are not sitting, our hours in the house are easiest. But toward the end of the session, when all the committees are sitting, when they not only overlap each other but overlap the sittings of the house, we bring in morning sittings.
It is an impossible situation. The only time there is reason for morning sittings is in the early stages of the session, before we begin the work of the committees. That is when we have long debates such as that on the speech from the throne, which normally takes about three weeks; and the debate on the budget, though perhaps not so much that debate since it comes at a later stage of the session. There is no reason why we could not have morning sittings while the speech from the throne was being debated, because it consists of a number of set speeches. In that way we could pick up perhaps a couple of weeks of the time of the house.
Then I put forward another suggestion which has been put forward before, and I think something must be done to face up to it. It is the question of the use of the committees of this house for the transaction of much of the business that is done in the house at the present time, but which does not need to come before the house and can be done better in a committee. Much of the work done in connection with the estimates consists of trying to elicit information, often on a multitude of small points. That takes a great deal of the time of this house in committee of supply. We would not sacrifice any of our rights as members by referring much of that business to the committees, just as we do in connection with external affairs. We do not deprive any member of the house of his right to express his views on questions of policy which are properly discussed here, but information which is requested on the smaller details is obtained in the committee on external affairs to which the estimates of that department are referred. We save a great
Business of the House deal of the time of the house in that way, and consequently on the subject of external affairs we have a much more comprehensive and infinitely more orderly and constructive debate in the house than would be possible if it were interspersed with inquiries and discussions on a multitude of small details.
The same thing could be done with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.
If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) would be content on his estimates to make some of his speeches or give some of his explanations to the standing committee on agriculture, which I believe has not met for several years, we could save days of the time of the house.


Mr.   Baler@: On a point of order, the hon.
member just said the standing committee on .agriculture has not met for several years.
I would point out that we met on three or four occasions last year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am very glad to hear the chairman of the agriculture committee say they met several times last year. I should think such an important committee ought to be meeting every session, since there is so much business relating to agriculture that could be usefully discussed there. I think it is a reflection on the way in which the machinery provided in this house today is being ignored in the transaction of public business that that important committee has met so seldom. It has not met this session. We have been in session here for over four months and it has not met. That is not the only committee. There are other important standing committees that are just covered with cobwebs and which could do useful service in reviewing estimates and assisting in the conduct of other aspects of business of the house if we would let them do so. Debates in the house would be infinitely better and more constructive in consequence.
Whether there is to be a fall session or not, it seems to me that the experience we are going through now is one that demands in a most imperative way that something be done to face up to this problem. There will be criticism about the length of individual speeches and of course there will be discussion about the time that is spent on particular subjects. It is easy for a large government majority to look at an opposition that is not numerous and to say, "These people are doing too much talking." If there were more of us the duties of the opposition would be spread over a greater number. I hope that we will soon have reinforcements for the official opposition so that the duty of speaking in this house will be spread over a larger number of members.

Business of the House
Surely it must be seen by now in the light of the experience that is common to all members of this house that to go on as apparently we are going to do for this third year with two sessions in a year simply means that we are not facing up to the problem. That problem is the modernization of the procedure of this house so that better work can be done in parliament in much less time.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member quoted my words of the other afternoon, but he entirely misinterpreted them. What I said was that I believed that experience had shown over the last few years that membership in the House of Commons had become a fulltime position. I did not say that members of parliament should spend the whole year in Ottawa or in the House of Commons. If they are going to do the job for which they are elected, if they are going to discuss public questions in their own constituencies and elsewhere, they have not the time for very much else. That is precisely what I meant and that is precisely what I said.
Further, some hon. members of the house have from time to time been called upon to attend international conferences. I know that since 1945 all my autumns but one have been taken up with conferences relating to international and commonwealth affairs. Other members of the house have been called upon to do the same thing. Apart from obligations of that description, the business of this country and the business of a member of parliament is such that unless he gives his entire attention to his job it is difficult to see how he can fulfil the obligations of the position to which he has been elected.
Again let me say that I was not suggesting that members of parliament should sit here twelve months in the year. I think that no one within sound of my voice on that occasion could possibly have put such an interpretation upon my words. It is merely an interpretation by a legal mind of words that were not so meant.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I understand correctly what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) intended to say, and I rise just to make a brief comment on it. As I understand it, he is suggesting that the time has come when, if membership in parliament is not to be a whole-time job, at any rate it is to be an exclusive job. I hope I am interpreting him correctly. I am in one sense disinterested as far as this matter is concerned. When I left business, I left it entirely. When I had the misfortune to be defeated in June, 1949, I 
became one of the unemployed. Therefore, I am not speaking for myself in what I am about to say.
I feel that if we have reached the stage which I understand the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar contemplates then I believe it to be a fact that a considerable number of men in this house, I would say at least thirty-five or forty, men whom we would dislike most to lose from this house, will not be able to continue. I believe that with all my heart. I say that irrespective of profession because some of them are farmers, some are doctors, some are lawyers and some are businessmen. If we accept the view of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, if that is to be the settled situation, then a considerable number of men will not be able to continue to be members of parliament and they would not be the men we would miss the least.


Alcide Côté: Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from my riding which I had not visited since last September. I did not know that this thing was going to come up in the house. I listened to the speech made today by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) and I gathered that he was using a mental argument. I should like to use a little bit of an emotional argument, and this may prove a surprise, not to the Liberal party but to the Tory party. I like the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). He is a nice looking gentleman. However, I asked my constituents, "Has George Drew any chance of getting anywhere in my riding even with the best candidate?" They said, "Well, not under present circumstances, because if the leader of the opposition carries on with this policy of the Tory party, of the big shots of Bay street and St. James street-".


Donald Methuen Fleming: They are all Liberals.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member should confine his remarks to the motion before the house.


Alcide Côté: I have a hunch that somehow the Tory party will be recognized as being the party of the capitalists and the bigwigs. I should like to pay a compliment to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for having introduced a motion which has had the effect of bringing together in marriage the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). For the first time, in this session at least, they are in accord.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member is suggesting that the leader of the opposition and I are in accord for the first time on this question. That is

absolutely untrue. The leader of the opposition commands my confidence, and my loyalty as my leader.


Mr.   Coie@Maiapedia-Maiane: I still have the convention in mind.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Better get up to date.


Mr.   Coie@Maiapedia-Maiane: Let us get
down to brass tacks.


Mr. Brooks:: Sit on one.


Mr.   Coie@Maiapedia-Maiane: The hon. member for Peterborough West is not here. The Tories are against a second session to deal with the job that we have to deal with in parliament. May I suggest that twenty times during this session we have tried to promote legislation and estimates and the leader of the opposition and the Tory party brought up matters that they stated were emergency matters and they insisted on discussing another topic. That has happened over twenty times this session. Now the opposition is saying that it is the fault of the government that we did not make greater progress than we have made. I would suggest that they should have a sort of examination of conscience, and see how many days we have spent here, at the expense of the taxpayers, in discussing so-called emergency matters that were not emergency matters.


George Alexander Drew: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I simply want to point out that, because Hansard goes out and because many who read it would know nothing about the hon. member except his name, I cannot let the statement that he has just made go unchallenged. He is well aware of the fact, as all hon. members are, that the statement he has just made is fantastic nonsense; and that far from there being twenty times, there have not been ten times or there have not been any occasions on which I have objected to the procedure, except to ask that the business of the house be properly organized, or on certain occasions I have made suggestions as to the subjects which should be taken up.


Alcide Côté: I would
suggest, Mr. Speaker, that Hansard will speak for itself. I do not want to challenge the chief of the opposition (Mr. Drew) in this particular matter. But I know how many votes we have taken in this session. I know how many times the leader of the opposition rose in his place in this house and said, This is an emergency, and we had to discuss the emergency; and on occasion we discussed the same topic three times. I do not want to attribute all the blame to the opposition or to the Tories, because they do not count in our province. They do not
Business of the House count and they never will if they continue to carry on their policy in this way. Now the big shots of Bay street and St. James street say-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Those are Liberals you are
talking about now.


Mr. Cole (Maiapedia-Maiane):: They say:
One session. I thank the hon. member, the former president of the national association, for standing up and saying: Well, my God, and so forth. That is all right. But we are the representatives of the democratic people of Canada. That is why we are here, and because we are not representatives of St. James street or Bay street. Of course it is up to them to be here, although some like to play golf, if we have to stay here all the year round.
I agree with the hon. member who was a former capitalist. I hope he still is in case I need some money some day. Just a moment ago the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) said that it is impossible not to be here the year round. It is possible for these gentlemen to be here the year round when we have a session at $4,000. But how many can afford that across Canada? How many can afford to leave their business and be here all the year round except for two months in the year, I should like to know. The hon. member mentioned that it was the safeguard of democracy to have here a sort of representation of the stalwarts of the population. How can you expect to have that representation if you leave it to the hands of the gentlemen who have all the money? It was funny to hear the chief of the opposition who has a beautiful home in Ottawa, as has the Prime Minister-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the
hon. member should confine his remarks to the motion before the house.


Alcide Côté: There is
no reflection meant.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the
co-operation of the hon. member who has the floor in maintaining order in this house.


Alcide Côté: There is no reflection whatsoever on the chief of the opposition. It is a reflection on the Tory party of which he is the leader, and whose house has been given to him by the party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the motion before the house.


George Alexander Drew: It goes slightly farther than
that, Mr. Speaker. We are discussing public business and because the members of this
3856	HOUSE OF
Business of the House house are all in some way associated with that business it is necessary for me to correct Hansard and to state what I feel sure the hon. member well knows, namely that no house has been given to me by the Tory party, but that a group of citizens provided a house which is to be the house for the leader of the opposition from time to time. That has been publicly stated-and stated clearly-and I thought the hon. member knew it.


Alcide Côté: I will accept the correction made by the leader of the opposition. I accept it. I am glad that the correction was made by him.


William Earl Rowe: You should have known it
before.


Charles Delmar Coyle: I say that
if for other reasons the chief of the opposition is willing to stay here for twelve months during the year, that is his business. He has the full advantage. I should be glad if I could stay here for twelve months and look at him. But as far as I am concerned I want to tell the Tories that if, in my riding, they continue to carry on the policy of the big shots, they will never get anywhere in Quebec irrespective of the last congress they had in Montreal.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Alcide Côté: I am
pleased to offer their support to the Prime Minister.


Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Here we go now.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: -I often wish some of these great orators would get up and try to demonstrate whether they have much intelligence and try to say a few words on their feet rather than sit back sprawled out in their seats and interrupt people who are at least endeavouring to say something on behalf of those hon. members' constituencies as well as their own. There is one man who is frequent in his interruptions, but I have never heard him speak very intelligently on his feet on any occasion in the House of Commons, either for his constituency or for any other constituency across Canada.
This debate has been exceedingly interesting. I am going to try to speak just as a lowly individual member. I quite agree with the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) when he says that it will be a sorry day for the House of Commons when we lose the great asset which the people of Canada now possess in having men of diversified occupations, from all walks of life, sitting here


endeavouring to administer the affairs of the people of Canada. That can only be made possible by people attending to whatever vocation they are carrying on in their home constituencies. If it ever becomes necessary for a member of parliament to devote one hundred per cent of his time to the House of Commons, we will no longer have a democracy or a democratic form of government.
All hon. members, with few exceptions, must undoubtedly agree with those words. We cannot have a democratic form of government unless people are in the position that they can seek and obtain information from people of all walks of life, through association in business. But surely the members of this House of Commons are not so antiquated and steeped in tradition that they cannot get together and smarten up the method by which we are endeavouring to carry on the people's business in the House of Commons. Surely we cannot let tradition hold us in such a vise that our own inveterate intelligence and knowledge, gained through bitter experience, will not serve the members of this house of all parties so that they may devise some method of expediting the service that we are trying to render to the people of Canada. I believe that what we have heard today will be of great benefit to all members of the House of Commons and, therefore, will be beneficial to the people of Canada.
I heard one hon. member, the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), talk about remuneration. Let us be frank about it. The rising cost of living affects all members of parliament. Members who, through their integrity, their intelligence and their willing-nes to work, are at times able to make more money than are other members of the House of Commons, are justly entitled to whatever money parliament sees fit to pay members of the House of Commons for the service they render to the people, irrespective of their private income from other sources. Undoubtedly the public of Canada should be aware, as most of them are not, of the length of time that a member of parliament devotes to the duties that he is called upon to perform as their representative. A member of parliament's duties are continuous. You talk about sixteen hours a day. The duties of a member of parliament extend over twenty-four hours a day. He is on call twenty-four hours a day. He comes to the House of Commons around nine o'clock in the morning and opens his mail. He attends the afternoon session, and the session closes in the evening at eleven o'clock. He finally wends his way home and arrives there at twelve or twelve-thirty, if he is fortunate.

The people of Canada do not realize exactly what is involved at the present time in the duties of a member of parliament. There are the committee meetings. They do not speak of this, but members of parliament are on call all the time. Men and women call a member of parliament when he is in his own home supposedly on vacation, and inform him that some gentleman has been arrested for drunken driving, what can he do about it, or some lady thinks she is entitled to a pension. She is only forty-eight years old but her children have all grown up and she is no longer getting the widow's pension. Just because she has been receiving it and the children are grown up she thinks she is still entitled to it, and the member must conceive some method of seeing that the pension is continued to her.
The duties of a member of parliament and the requests made of him should be considered by the people of Canada. The position of a member of the House of Commons should be set on a pedestal as high as any position occupied by any man in the country.
We talk about an increase of twenty per cent in judges' remuneration because of the service they render. I will say openly in the house today that the members of the House of Commons are badly underpaid. They are badly underpaid for the services rendered.. If any voter in any constituency thinks that he is going to get the kind of intelligence that he will need, not the kind that he wants, perhaps, but the kind that he needs for his benefit, he will have to pay more for that service.
There are men who have been talking and heckling in this house today who are very keenly pleased at the fact that there is another session in the offing in the fall and that they may replenish their depleted coffers. I am one of that group. I do not want to work for marbles, and I do not mind giving the best that I have in me in service to the people who sent me here, and I shall continue to do that, but I am going to be free to tell them that I am entitled to more pay. I am not going to beat around the bush about it as some men do.
What we need to do in this house is to show the people of the Dominion of Canada that in the position we occupy, or should occupy, we are representing all the people of Canada. By so doing we shall gain the respect for our position which is its due.


Mr. A. C. Stewart (Yorkton):: I have a few words to say on this motion. With all due respect to the hon. member who just took his seat, I think his remarks exemplify what a member of the House of Commons could do. The hon. member's voice and expression
Business of the House are such that if he went into competition with Jimmy Durante I think probably he could earn a lot of money. That is a compliment to the hon. member. I understand that he also had a splendid record in other realms, and I am proud to hear from the hon. member in connection with the duties of members of parliament.
In spite of the press statements, the duties of members of parliament have been carefully outlined by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), and the work of the forthcoming fall session has been outlined by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I do submit, however, that there is a waste of time in this House of Commons. I have sat in a house for as long as nearly twenty years. There is a waste of time in debates in this house. There are some hon. members here who have been here a long time who do not indulge very much in debates, but when they do get up they do say something. There are other hon. members who have been here a long time because they have looked after the people of their constituencies. But the matter of serving a constituency is not jumping up in the house on every conceivable occasion.
If we are to amend the procedure in this House of Commons before the next session rolls around I should like to have statistics before us showing the time actually occupied by some of the professional orators. If they had not taken up so much time we would have been through with all the business by now. Because they have been here a long time, owing to their being lucky or through being skilful enough to spend all their time on politics, and thereby get re-elected, they think that they should make the job of a parliamentarian a profession. That is not our duty here. For instance, yesterday we had motions on second and third reading of a bill that were almost identical. It had to be voted on, twice. If the time taken in the house by certain members of the opposition were carefully calculated, and if we had it before us at the next session we might possibly consider changing some of the rules. Some of the suggestions of the hon. member for Eglinton could be very carefully considered by parliament and by the government.
The leader of the opposition objected to the statement being made that he was following the press. The leader of the opposition quoted from certain newspapers. I have read the two Ottawa papers and this paper from Montreal. There is no question in the world that they are nothing but Tory papers. I think they followed the leader of the opposition in their objection to the change that is proposed by the government. You cannot
3858	HOUSE OF
Business of the House pick up these papers and find properly quoted anything that a Liberal said. In my opinion they are nothing but Tory press and a Tory vehicle. I think they follow the leader of the opposition in their remarks criticizing the fact that members' indemnities are being raised.
With all due respect to the press-and I know some splendid fellows on the press- we do not find many members of the press elected to parliament. There are very few members of the House of Commons representing the press. In so far as the relative merits of the press and the parliament are concerned the people can judge. If there is any doubt as to the relative merits of the press and parliamentarians the ball game last night amply demonstrated who is superior.
In so far as the western members and the maritime members are concerned, the men who wrote these articles have not featured the actual position of those members. Not only have they left their homes, but they have to stay in Ottawa. Very few of them have been back to their homes during the whole of the session. For instance, two members from Saskatchewan have had to buy homes down here to get their young children at school and to keep them in their parents' care. Members from the maritimes and from Newfoundland are in the same position. They have to stay here. On the other hand, members from Ontario and Quebec can get home every week end-and some of them are very long week ends. They are also faced with something that possibly the press does not understand, and that is, that the closer you are to home the more difficulties you run into, and John Jones, his uncle and his aunt are on your doorstep, morning, noon and night, just as the previous speaker said.
Parliament is an institution. Following what the hon. member for Eglinton said I think we could shorten procedure in this House of Commons if certain members who have usurped the floor time after time, thinking that they are displaying ability and skill that are not possessed by other members, would refrain from jumping up on every conceivable occasion and taking up the time of the house in senseless debate.
I think that between sessions the cabinet might carefully consider overhauling some of the rules of the house. The session this fall will be an important one; important matters will have to be dealt with. Then, over and above the legislation to be introduced, we do not know what the war situation may be. Members would be subject to call if the war situation became worse.


Instead of being criticized in the house, I say the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the cabinet should be commended for having taken the stand they have taken. As has been said by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), there are men working in factories, men working in mills in Hamilton and other places who, as unskilled labour, are earning more money than hon. members receive for their indemnity.
I disagree with what was said by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) with regard to lawyers. The law societies in all the provinces, and the judges, are not required to sit during what are known as the long vacations. The long vacation begins on July 1 and, except for summary trials before justices of the peace, there are no court sittings until September 15. And, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that we sit here another two months listening to some of the speeches such as those we have been forced to listen to in the last four months nauseates some of the western members and, I believe, the maritimers, as well. That is a fallacious suggestion.
We have heard about the terrific heat of midsummer in Ottawa. We have not had that heat yet this summer; but as for accomplishing any real work in the House of Commons during July and August, particularly with respect to certain bills that have not yet been placed before the public, and which our constituents have not had an opportunity to study-and in this I include not only the matter of freight rates, but also the other bills the Prime Minister has mentioned-the prospect is not very bright. We want to discuss those measures with our constituents so that we may have their views and work refreshed in the fall.
In my opinion the government is to be complimented upon arranging matters as they have been arranged. For simple party reasons, the official opposition should have acquiesced, as have the other groups, in the suggested change for this year.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, the last two speakers have made a real contribution to the debate. Anyone who will read their speeches carefully will see that they have pointed out many of the conditions facing members of parliament.
Morning sittings are distasteful to all hon. members; they are distasteful to members of the Social Credit group, because they constitute a heavy additional strain just when all conscientious members are pretty well worn down. But we know, as members of the Social Credit group, that in order to finish the business of the house we must

hold morning sittings; there is no use complaining about it. It is just part of what we have to take in our stride.
Governing Canada is an exceedingly complex and laborious task. This is true even in what might be called normal times; we are now in the most perilous of abnormal times. All this ought to be borne in mind when we are considering the problem of having a second session.
We are faced with problems of tremendous importance and of almost overwhelming intricacy.
As one example of the difficulty of governing Canada, look at our estimates. I do not wish to reflect upon anyone in the house, so far as his work here is concerned. In fact, I believe there is no one in the house upon whom reflection should be cast as regards using time. All one need do in this connection is consider the estimates. If the people of the country could see the big blue books of estimates members have on their desks, books completely filled with items, any one of most of which could occupy the time of the house for perhaps a week, and realize that members have to labour through those estimates during the course of a session, they would realize in part the problem facing us-and particularly the problem facing opposition groups who are expected to criticize adequately the estimates coming before the house.
There comes to my mind one item which hon. members will all have in their minds, I refer to the Department of Transport. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) came before the house with his estimates, prepared and ready to discuss them, and days and days were spent by opposition members on the discussion of only the first item. We did not make the slightest progress during those days, so far as getting the estimates through was concerned-and yet I believe every speech made was well worth making and was a contribution to the debate. If hon. members proceeded to examine each item as carefully as they examined the first one in the Department of Transport, we could not possibly hold enough sittings in a year to cover the estimates.
One question is this: What are we going to do about these estimates, most of which are as important as the first item in the Department of Transport?
I should like for a moment to turn to the press. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has quoted from certain newspapers throughout the country. In my opinion the writers of the editorials the leader of the opposition quoted simply went off the deep end. They indicated they did not
Business of the House know anything like what they ought to have known about the conduct of the affairs of the House of Commons; otherwise .they would not have made any such irresponsible statements as were read into the record this afternoon.
I think the time has come when someone ought to put our press to school, so that they would know something about the responsibility resting upon them. Anyone who reads almost any of the major newspapers of this country, on either side, finds himself reaching almost a state of disgust when he realizes the incompetency of the knowledge, understanding and thinking of the men who are writing these editorials.
Let me use one illustration: if members do not talk on the estimates, then according to certain newspapers they are weak, and are not doing their jobs; if they do talk, then they are wasting time and delaying the progress of the session! For some reason or other it seems there is scarcely a newspaper editorial writer in Canada who has been able to sense that fact, and to view the whole matter with equanimity and with a dispassionate soundness of thought. They do not seem to realize that everything they say has an effect upon the people, and has something to do with leaving the impression as to whether or not the House of Commons is a success.
As I said a moment ago, when we discuss the estimates we are accused of delaying progress; if we let them go through without criticism we are accused of being lax and negligent, so that we see headlines in certain papers condemning how the members have passed billions of dollars of estimates in one or two hours or one or two days! But all the members were trying to do was to get the estimates through so that the session could be finished in reasonable time. It is not that members do not want to discuss the estimates; under the circumstances they simply could not possibly take time to discuss them.
I suggest that every newspaper editor in the Dominion of Canada should obtain a copy of the estimates and then come forward with suggestions as to how the House of Commons can deal adequately with this volume of estimates in any length of session.
I am tempted to say something about the stand taken by the leader of the opposition, but I hesitate to do so. I did think, however, that after having been here as long as he has, and having been in public life as long as he has, he should have realized that a good many of the things he said would have been much better left unsaid. The position of
3860	HOUSE OF
Business of the House this group was well set forth by the leader of the Social Credit party on June 4 as recorded at pages 3668 and 3669 of Hansard. He agreed with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) completely with respect to holding a fall session. If he were here today- and he is unavoidably detained-I believe he would say that he would agree with the Prime Minister with respect to holding morning sittings. Therefore this group is completely behind the Prime Minister not only in holding a fall session but also in commencing morning sittings next week.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Just before the motion is put, there is a word I should like to say bearing directly on the question before us. I for one promise to be strictly in order and to talk about the motion now before the house, which calls for morning sittings starting at eleven o'clock next Monday morning. The reason I rise is that I want to put in a word for those whom the passing of this motion will directly affect.
[ refer to various groups of employees of the House of Commons. For a number of these groups it means additional work and additional hours. For one group in particular -and I refer to the Hansard staff-it not only means additional hours and additional work but it also means additional strain.
All of us have contacts with the members of the Hansard staff. I am sure all members will realize the truth of what I am saying, and will realize that in former sessions there have been times when we have been unfair to them because of the length of time during which morning sittings were held, and also because of the fact that toward the end of the session the tendency is to have a day or so when we sit right through meal hours. There are two suggestions I want to make. The first is that in view of this extra work I think consideration should be given to something in the nature of overtime pay. If there is no other way in which it can be done, at least it can be done by granting pay for a week or so after the session ends, and in view of the extra work I think members of the Hansard staff would be fully entitled to consideration of that nature.
The other suggestion I wish to make is that this time-and indeed in all future sessions-we should avoid, unless there is some dire emergency, going straight through on the last few days without rising for meal hours. I make that plea not on my behalf, not on behalf of the members, but on behalf of the Hansard staff who find those days really more of a strain that we should expect them to undergo.


What I have said about the Hansard staff applies to other groups, and I mention in particular the page boys. In view of the extra work we will be putting them to I think some special consideration should be given them. So far as they are concerned, I think we can leave it to His Honour, the Speaker, to find some way in which to make sure that they are compensated. I trust this will be done.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not going to speak very long. One hour and fifty-two minutes ago I bowed to the Speaker, and as a consequence of that bow he put a motion moved by me reading as follows:
That on and after Monday, June 11, 1951, until the end of the session, the house shall meet at eleven o'clock In the morning of each sitting day and that, in addition to the usual intermission at six o'clock p.m., there shall also be an intermission every day from one to three o'clock p.m.
In that hour and fifty-two minutes I have not heard anyone suggest that the motion should not be adopted. On the contrary, everybody has implied that it should be adopted. But notwithstanding that, there have been speeches that took an hour and fifty-two minutes on what the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) calls "kindred1 questions". Kindred questions are the explanation of the time that is taken in this house to transact the business that interests the country. The kindred questions were pretty carefully watched by the Speaker in this debate, and it is rather unusual that four or five times speakers were brought back to the matter that was before the house for discussion. It happens rather infrequently that in the discussion of these kindred questions the Speaker takes it upon himself to bring members back to the matter before the house.
I think that what has taken place here this afternoon is a very good explanation of why it becomes necessary at times to propose that there be three sittings a day in order to get through with the business that does have to be done. Those kindred questions are questions of considerable interest, but they are kindred. At the beginning of the session the standing of the parties was about 185 on this side and about seventy for all members of the opposition together. I have had a tabulation made of the time when kindred questions were under discussion in the budget debate and in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. On the budget 234 columns were taken by the 180 odd members of this party, and 331 were

taken by the seventy members of the other parties. On the speech from the throne 317 were taken by the Liberal members and 454 were taken by others. I am not complaining I am merely stating why it is that there comes a time when, to get the business of the house proceeded with, a motion of this kind has to be made. I submit it for the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That on Wednesday, June 13, 1951, and every Wednesday thereafter until the end of the session, the sittings shall in every respect be under the same rules as are now provided for other days.
He said: Mr. Speaker, since this motion was inscribed on the order paper some hon. members have pointed out to me that they did not expect it, and that they had other commitments for this coming Wednesday. They asked if the motion could not be amended by replacing June 13 with June 20. If I have the unanimous consent of the house I would suggest that it be so amended, or perhaps that it merely be corrected, and that it be passed as if the motion read "Wednesday, June 20, 1951, and every Wednesday thereafter until the end of the session" instead of "Wednesday, June 13, 1951, and every Wednesday thereafter until the end of the session."
Motion as amended agreed to.



REQUEST OF WESTERN FARMERS UNIONS FOR INTERVIEW WITH GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: I should like to direct to the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him notice. Has the Prime Minister received a request from the farmers unions of western Canada for an interview and an opportunity to present a brief dealing with the marketing of western grain? Is the Prime Minister prepared to arrange an interview for the delegation?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member sent notice to my office that he was going to ask this question, and therefore I was able to check the dates. The answer is as follows: On June 4 I received a telegram signed by Mr. J. L. Phelps containing a request that the government receive a delegation which would,
Inquiries of the Ministry according to the telegram, represent provincial farm union executives of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the British Columbia bloc accompanied by additional farmers, for the purpose of presenting a brief. I am not aware of what the brief contains, but the request stated that the delegation wished to present matters of urgent and immediate importance to western agriculture. I had a reply sent the next day, June 5, which stated that owing to the pressure of parliamentary duties it would not be possible to arrange an interview with the government but that the brief referred to in the request for the interview, when received, would be brought to the attention of those of my colleagues the organization might wish to have consider the representations.
I may add that members of the government met representatives of the farmers' unions of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta on April 9. Again on May 2 members of the government saw representatives of the farm organizations of western Canada. The delegation of May 2 included representatives of the federation of agriculture, the three pools, the united grain growers and the farmers' union. As nothing new to my knowledge has arisen since the May 2 meeting, I could see no urgent reason for arranging another interview at this time with organizations which form only a part of the federation of agriculture. When I receive this brief, if matters not already dealt with appear to be involved, the question of trying to find the time to receive a delegation can be reconsidered.


Mr. Fair:: If I might ask a supplementary question, in view of the fact that a very great wrong has been done to western agriculture-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Robert Fair: -about which a delegation
recently visited Ottawa, I would ask the Prime Minister if he will reconsider his decision.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do not
consider that a great wrong has been done to any section of the community. As far as the five-year wheat pool is concerned, as long as I am a member of the government it will make no further recommendation to parliament.


Robert Fair: The steal still continues, then.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: understand the conference between the
3862	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Newfoundland salt codfish association and the representatives of the fishermen has concluded. I wonder if the Minister of Fisheries is prepared to make a statement as to the results of that conference.


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: The hon. member telephoned me this morning and said he proposed to ask this question. It has been reported to me that while agreement was not reached between the representatives of the fishermen and the merchants on minimum prices to be paid for the 1951 production of salted cod, there was no great difference between what the merchants were prepared to offer and what the fishermen considered to be the minimum they could accept. Agreement was reached to hold further meetings on a monthly basis throughout the season, and as the production and marketing picture clarifies it would seem likely that agreement on prices can be reached at a later date. I would point out that the chairman of the Newfoundland fisheries board, in calling this meeting, was simply providing a medium for the two groups to meet. The responsibility for decisions reached or not reached rests entirely with the fishermen and the trade.



SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON SOUND-AMPLIFICATION -SUGGESTION AS TO PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Kirk (Anligonish-Guysborough):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the announcement of those members who are to serve on what is called the amplification committee. I observe that the name of an hon. member, in fact a member of the cabinet, who should be on that committee does not appear in the list. The hon. member to whom I refer is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and is an electrical engineer. For a time he was associated with the Bell Telephone laboratories in New York, and more recently with the Northern Electric Company in Montreal. I am sure this must have been an oversight, and I now draw it to the attention of those who had to do with the selection of this committee.



POLYMER CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: In the
absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce I wonder if the parliamentary assistant would advise the house whether there has [Mr. Higgins.)

been any change in the directorate or company management of the Polymer Corporation that can be announced at this time.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: will draw the question to the attention of the minister, and if there is any announcement to be made I will have it made as soon as possible.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
383. Departmental administration, $381,223.
Mr. Black (Cumberland):: When the committee rose last evening I had been discussing this item and I do not propose to take much more time, though this department is extremely important to my part of Canada. When it was organized it held out great promise to Nova Scotia and the maritimes generally, and I think our members are very sympathetic to the minister and are disposed to co-operate with him in every possible way. We are voting a large amount of money to this department, some $47,775,575, which includes vote No. 565 having to do with wartime housing, under which we are to vote $12,700,000. During the course of this discussion I would like the minister to state just what he is proposing that will be of assistance to my province and eastern Canada generally.
Last evening, in the few minutes at my disposal, I mentioned quite a number of items about which our people are concerned. I recognize that some of those matters are not covered by the estimates, but they have to do with the resources and development of Nova Scotia and I took it for granted that the minister would be concerned with them.
I was particularly discussing the dispersal of industry, which is of great interest to eastern Canada. Many representations have been made from all parts of the house with respect to expenditures made during the two great wars, and expressing the hope that due consideration or perhaps even special consideration would be given the outlying parts of Canada in the defence expenditures now being made. Not only was this view put forward by members in every part of this house; some senators expressed concern that more had not been done along this line. This does not come directly under the minister, I appreciate, but after all he is the minister directly responsible for the interests of Nova Scotia, and I look to him to take an interest in this. What has been

done up to the present has been very disappointing, but we are still hopeful that special appropriations will be assigned to eastern Canada. I noticed an announcement a few days ago that the enormous sum of $50 million was to be spent in constructing a chemical plant in Alberta. A few days ago I asked the Minister of Defence Production what was being done in Nova Scotia in regard to chemicals development, and he gave the encouraging reply that it was being considered but he could not yet make an announcement. I hope the Minister of Resources and Development will be able to make some announcement in this respect.
There are many other matters which are concerning the people of eastern Canada but I do not know that there is any necessity for me to refer to them on this occasion as no doubt other hon. members will do so. Other items of expenditure will be discussed in detail as they are called and I do not know that I need say anything more on this first administration item.
The Department of Resources and Development holds out great promise, or it did when it was organized, to the people of my constituency, to the people of Nova Scotia and to the people of eastern Canada. I look forward to hearing a specific statement by the minister as to just what he proposes to do under these estimates to assist this part of Canada.
There is still a considerable amount of unemployment and many of our people are being attracted away from home to central Canada. We feel strongly that this should not take place. It is the primary duty of the minister to see that employment is given to these people where their homes are and that they be not attracted away with their families following in due course. It is the primary duty of this department and of the government in general to see that there is a fair distribution of industry at a time when there is so much production in Canada. This should be done as quickly as possible.
It has been stated in the house that members from the maritime provinces are continually complaining. I do not think that that is a fair interpretation of the appeals we made during the last war and since, and are making at the present time. I think it is recognized by many who do not live in the maritime provinces that those provinces have not received proper consideration from this government and from some previous governments. We have the resources and the manpower and we certainly have contributed our part to the formation of Canada.
There would have been no Dominion of Canada had it not been for a statesman who
Supply-Resources and Development came from the maritime provinces. There would have been no Dominion of Canada had we not formed part of it. Many people in Nova Scotia have been disappointed with the results, but I assure members of the house that we are still good Canadians and are going to play our part within the bounds of Canada. We make this special plea to the minister whose estimates are now before the committee, to the government in general and to the membership of the house, that more attention be given to the needs of our people in eastern Canada.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Chairman, I have one
or two comments I should like to make but I can assure you that they will not be long. They have to do chiefly with conservation. I believe the minister, and no doubt all hon. members, will agree that possibly conservation is the most important thing in Canada today. When we speak of conservation we think immediately of our forests and what has happened to them. Someone told me recently that as a result of carelessness last year enough timber was burned in Canada to build a city the size of Montreal. If that is so then very definite measures should be taken to ensure the future wealth of our forests.
I understand that when the white man came to this country there were nine inches of top soil. As a result of the destruction of our forests by fire and improper cutting that top soil is now less than six inches deep. That is a very serious matter. If our forests are not properly conserved our top soil will gradually disappear. Top soil is the most important soil in the country.
With all this I couple the question of the conservation of game fish. I am sure that the minister's department has this matter seriously in mind. I do not think I can approach this subject more strongly than the department is probably approaching it at the present time, but I do feel that those who hunt and fish should have instilled in them, and we should keep on instilling in them, the fact that they should not shoot any more than they intend to eat. They should not shoot simply for the pleasure of shooting. This applies to all types of game and wildlife. It applies particularly to game fish, and here I am not dealing with the fish that would come under the Minister of Fisheries. He has strong ideas on conservation and he has been showing a great interest in this matter during the past twelve months.
If it has not already been done, a special effort should be made by the department along these lines. Education should be carried on through the schools in order to reach
3864	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Resources and Development our younger sportsmen, and there should be some form of continuous public campaign. Not only do we need our wildlife, we also need the money that is obtained as a result of that blessing. I venture to say that a large part of the United States money that we obtain is obtained from those who are interested in hunting and fishing. If we are to preserve that heritage very definite steps will have to be taken to see that these resources are not depleted.
We have seen what has happened in other countries. We have seen various species of wildlife disappear. We have in this country streams which at one time carried great numbers of salmon but which today carry none. As I said, I am not going to speak strongly or at length on this matter. I am sure the minister's mind is clear on the subject, and I believe that he feels the same as I do. When you discuss the conservation of resources you are discussing a matter that touches everybody. After all, the resources of each province in this dominion are extremely vital. When we see any natural resources being made away with by any means, we get a little bit worried. I am sure the minister has not had the opportunity of studying the bill that is going to be put before the legislature in St. John's, Newfoundland; but it deals with a great many of these resources over which the minister here has control. I hope the minister will be in a position to tell me what stumpage on wood is being paid in each province of Canada this year. I should like those figures if I could get them. I have a special reason for wanting them. An attempt is being made to give to a corporation a large area of the province of Newfoundland at a stumpage rate of fifty cents. To me that seems to be an extraordinarily low price. It is a matter that comes within the minister's purview, I should think. I should like him to let me have a comment on this matter and, if he can, to let me have the stumpage that is paid ' in the other provinces that are cutting wood.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National parks branch-
384. Branch administration, $22,780.
Mr. Knight:: I have a small but specific
matter that I should like to bring to the minister's attention. It has to do with a national park, namely the national park at Waskesiu in northern Saskatchewan. Three or four years ago I had occasion to make some complaint on behalf of the people whom I represent in the city of Saskatoon and who, I may say, use this park as a summer vacation ground; and a fine vacation ground it is. At that time a great many

people were using what are commonly called shack tents-a movable affair and semipermanent, if I may call it that-'which they took down and stored away in the fall of the year and put back again when they went back for the next summer. May I say that those people believed that they were receiving rather scant treatment on the part of the park authorities. They felt that they were being edged back from the lots which they occupied temporarily and that these grounds which they had previously occupied were being given to people who were willing to build cottages of a more permanent type.
I want to pay tribute to the superintendent of that particular park. Since Mr. Strong has been there, we have found a decided improvement. The people for whom I was concerned previously have had little reason for complaint; and so far as I know they have not made any.
There was, however, one incident which happened this year and which was brought to the minister's attention, and as to which, in correspondence with me, he did not answer. Whether that was an oversight on the part of his officials, I do not know; but I am going to bring it to his attention again. To these people who had these temporary quarters an opportunity was given to get lots upon which they might build a little bit more permanent type of thing. There was a big demand for those lots, and the matter was decided by drawing certain numbers out of a hat. My correspondent tells me that there were only 70 of these lots available whereas there were over 100 applications for them. That is reasonable enough.
The point that I want to make is that these people, in whose interests I speak, have had these grounds for a number of years. This man in particular had the ground since the year 1928. When it came to settling as to who would get these sites upon which to build this particular type of cabin, the names were put in a hat. But the names were put in a hat by the general public as well as by the people who had previously occupied the grounds. His contention-and it is a contention which was totally overlooked, may I say, in the answer of the minister-was that these people who had occupied these grounds for a period of years-and my constituent had done so since 1928-had a priority over the general public. That was his opinion, and it is my opinion.
When this matter was brought to the minister's attention, he replied that he sympathized with my friend who had not been lucky in the draw of the numbers out of the hat and that my friend would have the opportunity again, when the numbers

were again put in the hat perhaps a year from now, to get ownership of some other lot in some other grounds somewhere else. That is not the point. That is evading the issue. The point is this. Should these people who have had those lots for years and years not have some priority over the general public? That is the question that I should like to bring to the minister's attention, and I should like him to tell me what he thinks about that particular situation.


Mr. Winters:: In Prince Albert national park at Waskesiu, there was a need for further campsites mentioned by the hon. member, and a new area was opened up. The determination of who would have the privilege of occupying sites in the new area was made by draw, which seemed to be the fairest arrangement.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Chairman, might I interrupt the minister long enough to say that I do not agree with him when he says that it was the fairest arrangement.


Robert Henry Winters: That is a matter of opinion.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Does the minister think those lots should have been open to the public when people who had been there for ten, twelve or fourteen years had to submit to the chance of a draw as to whether or not they could get one of these lots?


Robert Henry Winters: If the hon. member had
allowed me to continue, as he did not choose to do, I would have said that the people who have been there for the period of time be mentioned still have the right to remain where they are now and that these new areas are available to new people coming in or to anybody who wishes to take a chance on the draw to change from where he is now to one of the sites in the new area.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I just want to say a few words on this item and to ask the minister a question. We were greatly interested last year in the opening of Fundy park in New Brunswick. I think we were the last province in Canada to have a park. Newfoundland was not part of Canada at the time that the parks were considered previously. We were indeed pleased that our park was opened in New Brunswick. I remember that in 1937 or 1938, I think it was, the parks were opened in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. At that time and previously I had pressed in the house for the opening of a park in New Brunswick. I felt that it was unfortunate that so many years had passed before it took place, and that we lost a great opportunity of tourist trade over those years. There was, however, difficulty over a site between the federal government and the
8.	1951	3865
Supply-Resources and Development province, mostly, I think, owing to the fact that the province could not decide on a site.
I may tell the minister that there were some complaints. I should like to have the minister's attention if I may, while I am speaking. There was some complaint over the ceremony at Fundy park last year. I may say that I am not blaming the minister personally at all, because I know that, when he goes into a province to open a park or any other public institution, arrangements are usually made by those in the province. But he must have been struck himself, I think, by the fact that the opening of Fundy park was entirely a political matter. There was not one-


Robert Henry Winters: Not political.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It was entirely political.


Robert Henry Winters: No, not political.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There was not one Conservative who took any part in the function. The leader of the opposition in the province of New Brunswick was not even extended the courtesy of being asked to sit on the platform although there were twenty other members and officials and mayors of different cities and towns who were asked. Mr. Mackay, after he came to the park at the very last minute on that day, was asked if he would come up and sit on the platform; but the courtesy had not been extended to him previously.
I dislike interjecting a personal matter, but the Fundy park is a part of my constituency, just as it is a part of the constituency of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, and I was not extended the courtesy of having an invitation.


Robert Henry Winters: If the hon. member will permit me to say a word to avoid a long debate, I should like to extend to him and to the colleagues of his party an apology. At the time of the arrangement I did not know that there had been that oversight but I learned of it since, and I was just as disappointed as he was. I am very sorry it happened. With regard to the remark about its being political, it was not intended to be political. I believe anyone who was there that day would support me in saying that there was no political complexion to any of the proceedings. I say again, I am very sorry that the members of the opposition concerned were not invited, and we shall certainly see to it that such a thing does not happen again.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister just bears out exactly what I said at the outset. I was satisfied that the minister had no intention
386S

Supply-Resources and Development that any discourtesy should be given to anyone. We look on our public park as something that belongs to all the people. There was considerable criticism in New Brunswick, and there is today, over the fact that this courtesy was not extended to members of opposition parties.
The minister says it was not political. Well, I listened to the speeches. I know that the chairman glorified the premier of the province and the premier glorified-


Robert Henry Winters: The leader of the opposition would have done that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: -the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The Minister of Veterans Affairs came on and glorified the present Minister of Resources and Development.


Robert Henry Winters: I do not remember that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: And so on right down the line. It was just a glorification of everyone. I was pleased to hear my good friend the hon. member for Saint John-Albert glorified, a man who had absolutely nothing to do with the park. He was not here in the house when the matter was brought up.


Mr. Riley:: I have been here ever since the work started.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not intend to elaborate this matter any further. I am satisfied that if the minister has anything more to do with matters of this kind in the province of New Brunswick he will see that courtesy and justice are extended to everyone. I have that confidence in him.
There is one thing that I should like to say about the park. We are indeed pleased to have it. It is a wonderful tourist attraction, but there is a complaint that there is no way of getting to it without great inconvenience. The money that has been spent has been justified except for the fact that the people cannot get there without travelling through clouds of dust. I know that a great many United States tourists who come into the province of New Brunswick start off for our Fundy national park. They have to breathe and eat dust for about fifteen or twenty miles. They come back disappointed and disgusted. It is certainly a great drawback. When looking into this matter I hope that the minister will provide a proper road through the park. I do not know whether it is his responsibility or the responsibility of the provincial government.


Robert Henry Winters: Provincial.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I understand that it is provincial. After establishing such a splendid park in New Brunswick I hope that the minister will use his influence to try and see that the

provincial government does something toward getting people there in comfort, and, as I say, without having to eat dust for fifteen or twenty miles.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I notice that $10,000 was provided under this item last year for the province of Newfoundland, but no amount is provided this year. I believe that nothing has been done. Was the $10,000 spent that was provided last year? If so, what was it spent for? Why is nothing provided this year? Is it the intention to establish a park? If so- and I presume it is-has anything been done about deciding on the area? If so, what has been done? The minister has had this matter raised on several occasions. I feel it is about time that we had a pretty clear-cut answer on the matter.


Robert Henry Winters: Under that vote last year certain investigations of possible sites were carried out, but no park has been established. We have had no formal offer of an area from the government of Newfoundland, which is part of the arrangement under which any park is established, and no final steps have been taken toward the establishment of a national park in Newfoundland.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Is the provincial government no-t anxious to establish a national park?


Robert Henry Winters: I of course cannot say whether the Newfoundland government is anxious to establish a park. They asked us to investigate certain areas, and officials of the department have done that.


Gordon Francis Higgins: And the investigation is completed?


Robert Henry Winters: That phase of the investigation is completed, at any rate. A report has been prepared, and it is available in the department. I have not studied it yet myself.


Gordon Francis Higgins: How long has that been completed?
Mr Winters: Since the first of this year.


Gordon Francis Higgins: And no action has been taken?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: I was interested to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Royal with respect to Fundy national park and also with respect to the road, because some of the roads going through the county which forms part of my hon. friend's constituency are rather dusty. I realize at the same time that this is not a responsibility of the Minister of Resources and Development, although we in New Brunswick would like him to arume at least part of the responsibility. His department could very easily see that in the

interests of promoting this most splendid park which is located in my constituency-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Not altogether.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: -a gesture could be made by offering to pay at least half of the cost of the road leading into the park from my hon. friend's constituency.
I was also interested to hear my hon. friend's comment on the opening ceremonies.
I was present at these ceremonies. I enjoyed them very much, and I am sure that he did as well. Perhaps we did not have the leader of the opposition on the platform-I thought he had been there. I am sure he did receive an invitation to attend the opening ceremonies.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes, but not to take part.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Did my hon. friend not receive an invitation to attend the opening ceremonies?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Since my hon. friend has asked me, yes, I did. What I was complaining about was that in the ceremonies themselves no invitation was extend d to the leader of the opposition or to anyone else except Liberals. In over twenty on the platform there was one Conservative who happened to be the mayor of Moncton, and it was generally understood that it was a very discourteous matter right through the piece.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: It is all very well for the hon. member for Royal to say that he was not on the program. Neither was there any member of parliament nor any member of the legislature nor any member from the Conservative party. On the platform that day was the Minister of Resources and Development. He could hardly have been denied a place there. Then there was the Minister of Labour. He could hardly have been denied a place. The premier of the province could hardly have been denied a place.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: None of them should have been.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: And members of the legislature from the county of Albert, who worked so hard to have the park there, as a matter of courtesy were asked to be on the platform. And I am very proud that the courtesy was extended to me, because the park was in my constituency.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I rise to a point of order. I am sure the hon. member wishes to be correct. The park is also partly in my constituency; I do not know whether he knows that or not.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Mr. Chairman, if the park is partly in the hon. member's constituency,
Supply-Resources and Development then I regret very much that I have not yet been able to visit that tiny corner of the park.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is hardly fair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are making it worse.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: No, I am not making it worse, at all. The hon. member for Charlotte was not on the platform, nor was the hon. member for Northumberland. The hon. member for Royal says that we must institute economies and save money; yet if the platform were built-


Stanley Howard Knowles: How much did it cost to put you on the platform?


Daniel Aloysius Riley: If the platform were built big enough to take in all the political parties, every member of every political party in New Brunswick, I am sure the hon. member for Royal would have some word of criticism.
What I would point out to the minister in regard to Fundy national park has something to do with the rate of wages being paid to the' employees of the park. I notice that from time to time people are engaged in what are known as casual labour positions, which do not come under civil service commission regulations. I have had complaints from some of those people and from other interested parties in different parts of the province who, after visiting the park, have pointed out that there are workmen there in responsible positions, or positions which would scarcely be classified as labour, and who come within the wage rate which is known as the prevailing rate in any locality. They are working perhaps ten hours a day and getting sixty-five cents an hour.
Would the minister look into this and ascertain if there are not people working at Fundy national park at wages which hardly compensate them for the amount of responsibility they must take and the long hours they work to retain their positions. I know of one instance where an expert garage mechanic was employed to look after machinery. A good deal of expensive machinery is used in connection with the park, and maintenance work generally. After warning the department on several occasions, this man was forced to seek employment elsewhere, because of the low rate of wages. I hope this item will come to the minister's attention before the park is used to any extent this summer. I am sure the people in that locality would appreciate the minister's attention in the matter, as indeed I would.
Another matter which has been brought to my attention on various occasions may not come exclusively within the jurisdiction of the minister. However, it has to do with the post office in the town of Alma.

Supply-Resources and Development


Robert Henry Winters: That is not in this vote.


The Deputy Chairman:: If it is not within the scope of this vote, the hon. member cannot discuss it.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: I shall save it for another
occasion.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Is it correct to say that the minister is prepared to establish a national park in Newfoundland as soon as the provincial government makes the land available?


Robert Henry Winters: I am not prepared to say at this moment that that is correct. The matter of establishing a national park is something that must be done by mutual agreement of the federal and provincial governments, the two major parties concerned. The purpose would be to set aside an area in a province for the use of all Canadians, so that they may enjoy themselves, and so that a certain area may be retained in its natural state in perpetuity.
We have had some discussion with the government of Newfoundland as to the desirability of a national park there. However it has not been finally determined whether an expenditure of money could best be made in establishing a national park in that province at this time. That does not mean to say that it is not the best way of spending the money, nor do I say that it is the best way. It is a matter we have to consider, and we must decide whether at this particular time there might be some other way or ways in which an equivalent amount of money might be spent to better advantage for the benefit of the citizens of Newfoundland and of Canada as a whole. The matter has not yet been finally decided.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Is it because the provincial government was not prepared to spend the money on this project, and felt it could spend the money to better advantage in another direction, that nothing has been done?


Robert Henry Winters: I am not prepared to say in this house what is in the minds of members of the government of Newfoundland.


Gordon Francis Higgins: To your knowledge.


Robert Henry Winters: I am simply saying that it is a matter of policy for the province of Newfoundland which has not yet been determined.


Mr. Dickey:: Mr. Chairman, in the few moments remaining before six o'clock I should like to express a word of appreciation to the minister and the government for the decision taken recently to take over Citadel hill in Halifax as a national historic site. I believe the procedure of taking the responsibility for this property from the Department of National Defence and placing it under the

historic sites and monuments board is a proper one, and one which has been welcomed not only in Halifax but throughout Nova Scotia.
Citadel hill, and Fort George, which is the fortification crowning Citadel hill, constitute in truth a most historic site. It is the central part of the old fortification dating back to the founding of the city of Halifax in 1749. The restoration and maintenance of the fortifications and work on Citadel hill will, I am sure, be of great interest and benefit to the whole of Canada. Not only is it an historical location, but it is also an extremely beautiful one, commanding a view of the city, the magnificent harbour and far out to sea.
Therefore I wish to express this word of congratulation and appreciation to the minister and to the government on behalf of the people of Halifax, who have had this matter at heart for many years. If anyone had any doubt as to the wisdom and farsightedness of the decision taken by the government in this connection, I am sure those doubts have been more than resolved by the findings of the royal commission which has dealt with this matter.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, before you call it six o'clock, out of deference to the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, and so that the reply to his question may be found near the question, for anyone consulting Hansard, I would say that the rates for the people he had in mind in the national park are established after consultation with the Department of Labour, and have regard to the prevailing rates in the area. The rates for the park are under revision now, and it is likely they will be revised before they are implemented this year.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: the second reading of Bills Nos. 332 and 343.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask that Bill No. 332 and also Bill No. 343 stand for the reason that the evidence in connection with both of these cases has not yet reached us?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Stand.



SECOND READINGS SENATE BILLS

Howard Waldemar Winkler: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 345, for the relief of Joseph Alfred Sabourin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 346, for the relief of Sarah Kami-chik Coviensky.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 347, for the relief of Yvette Marsan Valiquette, otherwise known as Marie Fernande Yvette Marsan Valiquette.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 348, for the relief of Margaret Elizabeth McIntyre Williams.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 349, for the relief of Mildred Ann Sinclair Allen.-Mr. Winkler.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Gagnon:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bills read the second time.



GABRIELLE ROBERT MALLETTE

Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bill No. 350, for the relief of Gabrielle Robert Mallette.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a brief word on Bill No. 350. I feel I should point out that of the cases before us tonight, a number of which we have already passed, this struck me as the saddest of those we are now dealing with. I shall not go into the details, although I could. I point out that there are two children, one boy eight and one boy seven years of age. The evidence seems to indicate that the husband has failed to support his wife or to assist her with the support of the children for some considerable time. I am happy to make the comment that no detectives were employed in connection with this case. The petitioner, the wife, was able to present sufficient evidence to the Senate committee herself as to her husband's misconduct.	.
The evidence indicates that the woman's income is only about $29 a week. It is a very pathetic situation on all counts. I am glad to note that the Senate committee reduced the fees that this woman has to pay for this divorce so far as parliament is concerned from the normal figure of $210 down to $75. I think I should also point out, although I have done it before, that the request made by the petitioner's counsel for the reduction of fees to that amount was made on condition that counsel submit a statement as to the fees that he would charge for the case. In other words it is an established practice in the Senate that when,
Private Bills
because of the poverty of the petitioner for a divorce, the Senate reduces its fee, the lawyer must accept the rule of the Senate that his charges must be not over a certain figure. It is a very unhappy situation on all counts, but I feel we have no option except to agree to this divorce.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



MOTION FOR SECOND READING


Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bill No. 351, for the relief of Archibald Kenneth MacLean.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, might I ask that this bill stand, again for the reason that the evidence has not reached us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Stand.



FIRST CANADIAN REINSURANCE COMPANY

Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston City) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 354, to incorporate First Canadian Reinsurance Company.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the sponsor for an explanation of this bill?


William James Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to incorporate this company to carry on the business of insurance and reinsurance as is outlined in the title and in the bill. I might say that reinsurance is a common practice in the insurance business. I am told that the present intention of the principals is that their business will be along the line of reinsurance to begin with, and they will do business in all types of insurance save and except life insurance. The bill is drafted in the usual form and complies with the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. I understand it has the approval of the superintendent of insurance and I recommend that it be accorded second reading and referred to the banking and commerce committee.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Would the sponsor mind stating what the subscribed capital is and the capital set-up of the company?


William James Henderson: I believe the capital set-up is contained in section 7 of the bill. There can be no meeting of the directors until $100,000 has been subscribed in bona fide subscriptions, and no business will be commenced until $250,000 has been subscribed in a bona fide manner.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
3870	HOUSE OF
Canadian Pacific Railway Company

Mr. John Decore (Vegreville) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 356, respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


Howard Charles Green: Could we have an explanation of this bill?


John Decore: The purpose of this bill is to
enable the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to carry out the terms of an agreement with the Alberta Coal Company providing for the purchase of fourteen miles of railroad recently constructed. As hon. members know, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is incorporated by an act of this parliament and therefore comes under the dominion Railway Act, which requires that before a railway company may purchase or lease the railway of another company it must have the approval of parliament. The object of this bill is to grant the company this power.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the hon. member permit a question before he takes his seat?


John Decore: Yes, when I am through. The line the Canadian Pacific Railway Company will acquire if authorized by parliament is a spur line recently constructed by the Alberta Coal Company connecting with the Canadian Pacific main line near Halkirk, which is somewhere between Calgary and Edmonton in Alberta. This spur line was constructed to enable the coal company to get its coal out by rail. The agreement which has been entered into by the coal company and the railway company is very much in the interests of the coal company. That company is not in the railway business and does not want to take over the responsibility of operating and maintaining this line. It will also enable the people in that area to open up a more or less new industry. As I have said, the coal company prefers to have this spur owned and operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway, with which it connects.
I therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this bill be given second reading and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, where the circumstances surrounding the agreement and other relevant matters may be gone into.


John Horne Blackmore: Do I understand the coal company built the line and owns all the shares in it?


John Decore: I am not sure who owns the shares of this line, though I understand the line is owned by the coal company. However, before the committee witnesses will be ready to give the answers to all these questions, and I believe that information can be obtained much more readily when the matter is before the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 5, 1951, consideration of the motion of Mr. Robinson for the second reading of Bill No. 118, to incorporate Border Pipeline Corporation, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Herridge.
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, from time to time in this house we have had debates with respect to oil and gas pipe lines. It may be thought strange that a maritimer should have something to say on this bill to incorporate this company, which is seeking permission to build and operate a pipe line. My reason for taking part in the debate is to express the opinion I have formed after listening to those who have spoken in opposition to this bill. One must consider the remarks that have been made. With one exception all those who have spoken on this bill have opposed it because they do not consider it in the interests of Canada first. The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) has impressed me from time to time with his arguments on these bills, in which he has indicated that he is looking out for Canada first.
I am taking the stand that I oppose this bill on similar grounds. I have nothing against the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill. I know him as a good member of this house, and I had hoped that he would go back to his incorporators and have them change this bill by making the route allCanadian, instead of having it take oil or gas to the United States. I try to look after the interests of Canada first, and with that in mind I believe we should ask ourselves what we are legislating for. In the closing days of a session, and indeed at other times as well, bills are brought hurriedly before committees of the house and adopted. Later, as has happened in other years, we find that certain bills should not have been adopted, because they were found not to be altogether in the interests of Canada first.
Many reasons could be given for taking that stand. I am going to give a few, which I hope may keep hon. members from voting for this bill. It is a great pleasure to be in this house and hear various hon. members from different provinces boosting-I could say boasting, but I think boosting is a better word-about the natural resources of their own districts and of Canada as a whole. The natural resources of Canada are something that any hon. member can be proud to boast about. These resources are barely scratched. The natural resources of Canada are great

indeed. Our production of agricultural products is one of the greatest in the world. Look at our forests. We can see at a glance that they constitute another great natural resource. Then we have minerals of all kinds. We have the finest fish that can be caught in waters anywhere in the world.
These are things that are worthy of consideration. In referring to our mineral wealth I am reminded of the gold rush to the Yukon in 1898, the greatest gold rush in the history of America. There have been other gold rushes, but the 1898 gold rush to the Yukon was the greatest that Canada or the United States had ever seen. The reason why so many made such great efforts to get to the Yukon was the hope that gold could be practically picked up from the stream. But they were all sure of one thing, that no expensive mining operations would be required.
Then came the discovery of oil in western Canada, particularly in Alberta and the oil rush is on today to that part of Canada. There is a rush also by different corporations to obtain, as it were, a complete monopoly in connection with the sale or export of this oil. In passing legislation of this type our first thought should be to see that the province that produces the oil is served first. Our second thought should be to see that the provinces adjoining are given an opportunity to use the oil to develop their manufacturing and other industries within the province. Then if there is a surplus it can be piped elsewhere to those other parts of Canada which require oil for the production of power and for manufacturing purposes. They should have the third right to the use of this great natural resource.
Why does this bill not contain a provision that the pipe line shall be routed through Canadian territory to British Columbia and the Pacific coast, to pass through Vancouver and other places? If that had been provided I think this bill would receive the support of the house because it would then be serving Canada first. If the pipe line were built in that way it would supply the Pacific coast. If there was a surplus it could easily be extended to the United States to serve our good neighbours to the south.
However, we find that this pipe line bill does not appear to be in the best interests of Canada. When speaking on the pipe lines some hon. members have referred to the Canadian Pacific railway. The Canadian Pacific railway served Canada first. When it was proposed to build that railroad from the Atlantic to the Pacific there was considerable difference of opinion among some of the most outstanding British, United States and
Border Pipeline Corporation Canadian engineers, some of them contending that it was impossible to build this railroad over an all-British route to the Pacific coast.
There must have been some men in British Columbia who have the same idea as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). At that time British Columbia had not entered into union with the rest of Canada and the people there stated that unless they received a guarantee from the railroad company that the railway would be built on all-British territory to the Pacific coast, they would not enter union.


An hon. Member:: Is it?


Mr. McLure:: This was carried into effect and that is the reason why today the Canadian Pacific serves Canada first and links up British Columbia as one of the provinces of the dominion.


An hon. Member:: What about Maine?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Another route could have been chosen but how much better off are the people of Canada that some men insisted that this railroad should be built on all-British territory or, as we call it today, on allCanadian soil from coast to coast. I have not sufficient information at my command to go into the further details of this bill, but I think our main reason for stopping its passage is that it does not serve Canada first. If it is to serve Canada first it must be built to the Pacific on Canadian soil. As I said a moment ago, if British Columbia does not require all the oil and there is a surplus it can be piped down to our neighbours to the south.
Another matter that I wish to make just a few remarks on is this. For many years we have been great sellers of foodstuffs and exporters of our raw materials. Here we have a raw material that we must not lose out on by exporting. The war brought to Canada an awakening; even if she had to suffer in two disastrous wars, at the same time Canada awoke and found herself ready to manufacture-something that was not done, except on a very small scale, prior to 1914. Canada can now be looked upon as one of the great, young manufacturing nations owing to the fact that we were forced into it. We have raw materials of every kind suitable for manufacturing. Why not manufacture that raw material into products that we need in this country instead of exporting the raw material and then bringing it back in its made-up condition, with our people having to pay five times the price they would have had to pay if they had adopted the principle of manufacturing their own raw materials into the products that they require?

Border Pipeline Corporation
Foodstuffs are a little bit different. We can supply our own people. But, on the other band, the greater the manufacturing industries grow, the greater would be our home market for our own production of foodstuffs. In closing my remarks, I just wish to add this. We all believe that Canada is a great young nation, Canada today is progressing probably more rapidly than any other country in the world. While Canada may be small in population, in area it is the third largest country in the world. As I have already said, it has the greatest resources of any country in the world. Why not let us see that these resources are used for Canadians and for Canada first? Consider what it would do for men of labour. If this pipe line were going to be built in Canadian territory through to the Pacific, the men of labour would have the opportunity of building it. They would also have a further opportunity of seeing that it was kept in repair. Then last but not least, when that raw material would get to British Columbia, there could be large refineries that would employ a great number of men. Surely we in this house should look to the interests of the labourer, to give him more work, and to produce more comfort for him. The only way by which we can do that is by having pipe lines and similar things serve Canada first before they serve other nations.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that others will follow me and speak against the passing of this bill, so that we will be assured that the interests of the labourers of Canada, as well as the best interests of all Canadians, will be properly served by having an all-Canadian pipe line route to the Pacific coast.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, this bill is to create a company known as the Border Pipeline Corporation. I believe that this company is actually sponsored by a group of people south of the border who have had a tremendous amount of experience in the construction and operation of pipe line companies. Undoubtedly they have gone to a firm of solicitors in this country and have had them prepare a charter to be presented to the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada. I believe that the solicitors must have instructed these gentlemen south of the border with regard to the powers of the members of the House of Commons and with regard to their duties towards the people of Canada, and have told them that it was not a one-way street, that it was not simply a duty that we owed to our guests and to the people desirous of coming to our country to utilize our tremendous natural resources. We must think not only

of courtesy to people coming to our country from the other side, but we must also think of the security and the welfare of the people of the Dominion of Canada.
Bearing that fact in mind, the situation reminds me somewhat of that which would confront you if you invited people to come to your home for dinner, and when they arrived you found that they did not like the dinner you were serving and started to dictate the kind and class of food they would prefer rather than the type you were serving. Much as we desire development of our great resources by our friends to the south and much as we need their aid and experience, we still do not want them to criticize too severely the food that we are offering. As a matter of fact, in this case it almost seems that they do not want to eat at all unless it is something they can provide for themselves. They must learn that we are the host. We have the natural resources. It is our food, it is our table, and it is our home that they are entering. They must therefore be content with some of the food we are offering and with the terms on which we are offering it.
The duty of the members of the House of Commons is, wherever possible, to see that the resources of this country produce as much profit and welfare for the people of Canada as they do for the users in foreign lands. We want to use our natural resources for the development of our factories and the development of our labour markets. We certainly cannot do that if we hurry our resources by the shortest possible route from the source of supply to the foreign country to which we are shipping our natural resources.
It has been gone into fairly thoroughly that by transporting the natural resources such as oil to the users in not too extravagant a manner, over a sane and reasonable distance, we are creating employment for the people of the Dominion of Canada. That does not seem to be asking too much when you realize the offering we have to make. It is worth millions. It will make millions. Oil has made millions for operators such as the applicants for this pipe line charter, in various parts of the world. One oil-producing country almost produced the spark that set off the third world war. That gives an idea of the importance of this natural resource we have. We find the President of the United States walking very gingerly and talking in whispers in order not to offend an oil-producing country that is not quite as far advanced in its general operation of industry as is the Dominion of Canada. Yet the applicants at this time would almost have you believe that we are wrong in demanding that they at least transport this oil by an

all-Canadian route and agree to operate, with regard to running their pipe line, on identically the same basis as other applicants for charters are willing to operate. I cannot see that we are asking them to do something that is unusual or anything that might materially change their profits. I do not think there is any reason why they could not operate at a profit or that there is any reason that they might lose the money they have already invested in investigating the potentialities of this pipe line. We are not asking anything unreasonable on behalf of the people of Canada. We are asking for an assurance from the applicants for this charter that if it is granted they will havb written into it the proviso that the pipe line or lines for the transmission or transportation of oil or natural gas, or artificial gas or liquid, or gaseous products or by-products thereof, shall be built entirely within Canada.
I do not know and I have not heard of any persons giving any logical reason why that should not be inserted in the agreement if this charter is granted. Too frequently in the past we have given away our great natural resources without due consideration of Canada. We have given those resources to foreign users. We have watched our population grow very slowly when it should have gone ahead at a rate at least twice as fast as it has progressed in the past fifty years. There have been times when we have wondered what we could employ our people at, and how we could utilize our terrific natural resources. Amongst the people in power there seemed to be an epidemic at times. Their desire was to get rid of those resources without due consideration <to the coming generations of Canadians who would need them and who would be able and willing to develop them. We know that our forests have been denuded of the natural wealth which was given to us.
We now find ourselves in the position where the greatest nation in the world is willing to buy Canadian produced newsprint, not simply pulpwood, at a very handsome figure. The purchase of this newsprint goes a great distance towards balancing our economic condition with other great nations. We do know that it was not very long ago that our pulpwood was being shipped across the border to the south in tremendous quantities at very little income to Canada or Canadians. Through the foresight and determination of men in power in Canada a few years ago the tables have been entirely turned. Canada is still a producer of pulpwood. Canadians have built paper mills. Canadians by thousands are now employed in turning out the finished product, paper, and are shipping that product finished and corn-80709-2464
Border Pipeline Corporation plete ready for use to the vast paper presses of the United States at a very handsome figure, which means considerable and well deserved profits to the Canadian people.
If we did not have this tremendous paper wealth, which is almost exclusive to the Canadian people, just how much purchasing power would the Canadian dollar have in regard to commodities which we are forced to purchase in the United States? I believe I am safe in saying that we would be paying almost four, five or ten times as much on exchange as we are paying at the present time if it had not been for the perseverance and foresight of men in public life on matters pertaining to the vast wealth in the forests of Canada. We are not asking any more than these men asked in the past. We are simply asking that someone pay a reasonable amount, and that Canadians obtain as much of the profit as is reasonable from the discovery of oil in Alberta. The people who are desirous of obtaining this wealth should pay this amount.
It is unfortunate that the solicitors for this corporation, knowing the attitude of the members of the House of Commons-because they have expressed their opinions previously in the debates-did not tap their clients on the shoulder and say: "Let us hurry the assurance down to Ottawa that we do intend to run an all-Canadian pipe line, because the gentlemen in Ottawa apparently are determined. They are not going to bend their knee to your whim just because you would like it that way." This debate could have been avoided, and the great expense to the Canadian taxpayers could have been avoided, if that had been done. I do hope that the members of the House of Commons will have the fortitude to stand up and continue to block this charter until such time as the people who desire to use our wealth are willing to accede to our terms, which I do not believe to be unreasonable.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate chiefly because I feel compelled to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The compulsion though, Mr. Speaker, is not, as some hon. members may suggest by their raucous laughter, from anything else but the conscience that I feel every hon. member has, because all we must do is look around at hon. members here this evening and see the obvious interest that is displayed in this matter. When one does that he realizes how their conscience must be pricking them steadily as we discuss this most important bill.

Border Pipeline Corporation
I am quite certain, that all hon. members, when they attend here on evenings like this and see such an important measure being discussed, must ask themselves: What are we here for? Especially is that so after the discussion that went on this afternoon at such great length on the duties of the members of the House of Commons and the stipends they receive for the very arduous duties that they perform. Then I say to myself again this evening when an important measure like this is being considered: How very obvious the interest is among the hon. members who are listening to me now.
I now intend to deal with various phases of the matter. I expect that any matter that has been left over from former discussions will be considered somewhat repetitious, but I am sure that a good thing cannot be repeated too often. For that reason, if I do repeat myself, and certainly if I repeat some of the expressions of my colleague, the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure), who displayed this evening a world of wisdom in the excellent address he gave on this matter, I hope that I will be pardoned, because it is not often that I have the pleasure of hearing the hon. member for Queens talking at length as he talked this evening. We do not often get that pleasure. Having heard him this evening I do say that we should have it many, many more times, because he has contributed to the discussion and to the wisdom of hon. members this evening something that we did not have before, and something that certainly the newer members of the house did not have before. It is only when you have the wisdom of the ages given by the sages of the house that the younger members can possibly hope to embody what this thing means in all its moods.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Can you not bear with me a little longer? This bill to incorporate Border Pipeline Corporation was, passed by the Senate in March.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member that we are discussing the amendment.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Well, I just wish to look at the actual title of the bill. I understand of course that we are discussing the amendment. But that amendment gets right down to the principle I should like to discuss in the house this evening, namely the principle of the conservation of natural resources. This is a matter we must consider fully, because, after all, it must be kept in mind that trees are a crop; they are cut down and grow back again. Wheat and other cereals grown by the farmers are crops that can be cut down. But there are resources 

such as oil and minerals that are taken out of the earth and are not put back. That is the end of them. Either they are used properly or they are lost forever.
If we are to use our natural resources we must be convinced in our own mind that we are using them for the benefit of the people -all the people, and not only a small section of them. The amendment, to which Your Honour has directed my attention, incorporates a principle which has been discussed this evening by two hon. members who have preceded me in the debate. That is the principle of using the resources in the first instance for the advantage of the Dominion of Canada itself. That is the principle I wish to discuss briefly. I must confess, in passing, that recent changes in government legislation, and changes in other minor things, including telephone books, where the word "dominion" has been dropped, have come as a shock to me. The word "dominion" is not nauseating, is it? Surely there is much to be said for the use of it; much can be said for the use *of old things.
We must deal with what was in the Dominion of Canada when it was a Dominion of Canada-and just what it is today, we do not know exactly. We do not know whether it is a commonwealth, whether it is just Canada, or what it is. I do not know. Does anyone else know? I would suppose that both the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Robinson) and Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) must take some responsibility for dealing with this pipe line situation. But the principle hon. members must keep in mind-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: An all-Canada line.


Gordon Francis Higgins: There can be no question about it that the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) has greater ideas about Canada and Canada-first than any other member in the house. He, for one, will be the first to agree that Canada must be for Canadians, first. I am sure he would agree with that. There can be no doubt that he is the type of Canadian who would always exemplify in Canada the principle of Canada for Canadians.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: How could we help agreeing with you?


Gordon Francis Higgins: I hope I am not aggravating hon. members.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: They are just jealous.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I should like only to repeat some of the exhortations I have heard this evening, that Canada must be for Canadians, and that Canada must first be served. I can see no argument against it; what argument could there be? One must consider that there are 14 million people in the country-


Mr. Gour (Russell):: There are 15 million now.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Well, what is 15 million people in a country like this today?


Joseph-Omer Gour: And they are nice people, too.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Hear, hear. And certainly the 325,000 mentioned a little while ago are good people. But we must look forward to a country in which we would have from 50 million to 100 million people. And if the country with that population is to be served by the resources of Canada, then one of the most important of those resources should be preserved for Canadians.
There is no one in the house who has a higher opinion of our neighbour to the south than I have. I believe the Americans are a fine people, and that we can share our natural wealth with them. But certainly we can share it with them only when we have made certain that our own needs are assured. When that is done, then I am sure that even those who hold strong opinions in this matter would be prepared to share with them. In this I have no doubt the hon. member for Simcoe East would agree. But he does not want to deprive Canadians of their God-given rights; I am sure he does not. That is the last thing in the world he would want to do. And knowing him as I do, I believe I can say safely-that it is nine o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being nine o'clock, the house will resume the business it was considering at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT

Louis-René Beaudoin: The committee was considering item 384.


Robert Fair: Mr. Chairman, for the last forty-five minutes we have been discussing pipe lines, and associated matters. For a few moments I should like to discuss another matter of national importance, namely one of the national parks within my province. I refer to Elk Island national park, which is along the Yellowhead route, and which should have been developed rather than the one that is being developed. However, we will not argue about that at the moment.
During the last two years particularly we have had several thousand visitors at Elk Island park particularly on Sundays and holidays. Provision has been made for concerts at those times. Up to the present the concerts
Supply-Resources and Development have not cost the dominion government anything, but those in charge feel that, in the near future, because of the continuing importance of the park, it may be necessary to make some arrangements to pay small expenses, when voluntary performers cannot be obtained.
On March 12 last the president of the Alberta music board, Mr. Richard S. Eaton, wrote to the superintendent of the national parks service, Department of Resources and Development at Ottawa. Perhaps in explanation of the position I could not do better than to read three paragraphs from this letter. It reads as follows:
As you are doubtless aware, since the park has been developed to the extent that it may now be regarded as a summer resort available to many thousands of tourists each year, the facilities of the cultural activities branch of the department have been placed at the disposal of Dr. Love, superintendent, and on Sundays and holidays throughout the season, weather permitting, entertainment has been provided at no cost whatsoever to your department except perhaps bus transportation.
I might say that the Alberta music board has been set up under the cultural development act which is administered by the department of economic affairs at Edmonton. The letter continues:
Up to now, the detail involved in arranging for the entertainment Sunday after Sunday has been in the capable hands of Miss Audrey Ladler, the secretary of the branch, and whilst there is no suggestion of any change being made, we are of the opinion that the time is ripe for your department to enter into an official agreement whereby the cultural activities branch-for a consideration-undertakes to provide satisfactory entertainment whenever required at the park.
We feel that your estimates should contain an appropriation-the amount of which need not be very large-so that when the supply of volunteer entertainers runs out. Miss Ladler would be in a position to offer a small fee to ensure that each Sunday and holiday the public visiting the park is provided with a concert of some description. Whilst we are aware that in every community groups are to be found ready and willing to display their talent without remuneration, after a little while the person charged with the responsibility of making the arrangements finds that the source of supply has dried up and is unable to continue asking groups to do something for nothing.
Our suggestion is that you include in the budget for Elk island park a sum adequate to provide transportation, at least one meal, and a small donation, to each group asked to perform in the park. Should you accede to this request, we feel confident that the task of the person in charge of arrangements will be made much lighter, and the calibre of entertainment will be improved considerably. At the same time, the prestige of your department will undoubtedly be enhanced by the fact that you are providing patrons with an organized schedule.	.
During the past summer a male chorus from my home town of Vermilion put on a concert there one day, and a week from Sunday a ladies' choir from the same town is entertaining at the same park. I have read
3876	HOUSE OF
Supply-Resources and Development of other groups in surrounding towns lying between the park and Edmonton, and some in other directions, having promised their support to the program. I feel that because of the importance of Elk Island national park at the present time, and the large number of local and outside people who are being entertained there every Sunday and holidays and other days during the week as well, the minister would be doing a service to Canada by acceding to the request in this letter.


Mr. Bryce:: I should like to ask the minister one or two questions about Riding Mountain national park. I have spoken about this matter before and have asked the minister to encourage larger camp sites there so that ordinary people can take advantage of them. The park is only about 150 miles from Winnipeg. It is an ideal situation for people from the whole area to come and spend a holiday at reasonable cost in these times of such high prices. I was not able to go there last year, but I intend to go this year. I was there two years ago. I had the idea from the minister in charge at that time that they intended to instal additional sewers and electric wiring along the lines of the camp site. I drew the minister's attention at that time to the fact that the use of coal oil lamps and other out-of-date lighting methods was very dangerous when so many people were visiting the camp sites. Would the minister tell me what extensions have been made there and what program is contemplated for this summer? Have you completed the highway through the park, running from Onanole through to Dauphin? Will you be able to accommodate more people this year than you could two years ago?


Robert Henry Winters: The electric wiring in Riding Mountain national park, to which the hon. member referred, is completed. It was completed last year. The road work to which he referred will be undertaken this year. There is quite a program of road construction in Riding Mountain national park. In reply to the last question as to whether or not we can accommodate more people in Riding Mountain this year than formerly, the answer is yes, we can.


William Scottie Bryce: How many more streets?


Robert Henry Winters: There are about 200 new lots.


Robert Fair: Would the minister comment on the remarks I made a couple of minutes ago?


Robert Henry Winters: I might say the matter
brought to my attention by the hon. member is something I have discussed with the hon. member for Vegreville, and I have also had the representation to which the hon. member referred. We have of course put


the facilities of the camp at the disposal of this music association, such as a shell, and have tried to assist this voluntary effort, which is a very good one, in every possible way. We feel, however, that we cannot undertake to pay their expenses to and from the park, but nevertheless we will do everything we can with the facilities at our disposal to encourage this voluntary effort.


Robert Fair: I think the minister did not
get my remarks correctly. I said the service was being rendered without any cost at the present time with the possible exception of bus transportation. The request made is, in the event that the supply of voluntary performers should run out, to enable those in charge of operating the program to ask somebody to come and be able to pay for their bus transportation, a meal, and possibly some donation.


Mr. Harkness:: I think it is some five
years ago now that I brought to the attention of the house and the then minister the fact that facilities in our national parks, and particularly in the parks at Banff and Jasper, were such that it required a fairly sizeable income to be able to go there to enjoy the parks. In other words, there was very little low-priced accommodation available. I made a strong plea at that time that some low-priced cabins should be erected. I think it was about two years later that some small move was made in this direction. Some buildings which had been used as army huts, or something of that sort, were moved into the park, and in that way a certain amount of low cost accommodation was provided. How far that has gone and how much low cost accommodation of that type there is in the parks I do not know. The first question I should like to ask the minister is what there is at the present time at Banff park particularly in the way of low-cost accommodation, cabins and so forth, where people with low incomes can afford to spend the night. I do not think the way in which this was done was particularly suitable, namely, the conversion of army huts. However, it was some help, though of course there was some complaint in Banff about the thing being done this way. I should like to impress upon the minister that a good deal more of this sort of thing should be done in our national parks. We should have cabins, which could be built at comparatively low cost, that would be in keeping with the natural surroundings. They could be built reasonably with these bark-sided boards; they would look quite all right and could be rented to people at low rates.

There is another side to this question of providing these facilities to people who are not wealthy. At the present time in Banff the building regulations are quite strict, so that it is impossible for people in the middle and lower income groups to build summer cottages or homes. The last list of lots of which I received a copy was dated May 25, 1950. The first ten or twelve listed give the legal description; the price of each lot is $650, and then the minimum value of the building to be constructed is given as $10,000. In other words, you cannot build anything costing less than that. Another group of lots in this list must have buildings costing at least $6,000, and there is one on which the building must cost at least $7,500. In other words, the very least a man can spend on a building is $6,000, and of course in addition to that there is the cost of his lot which he does not buy but leases. In other words, only comparatively wealthy people can afford to build houses in Banff. Of course buildings put up in places like that are used chiefly as summer cottages, and to some extent as ski lodges during the winter.
It seems to me these limits could be greatly reduced. The departmental officials say these restrictions are enforced so that only buildings which conform to the general amenities and conditions will be erected; but buildings that would conform to the other buildings in Banff, buildings which would be a credit to the park and which would not detract from anything there now, could be built for much less than these amounts. I would refer the minister particularly to a hut that has been erected at the ski camp on Mount Norquay for first aid purposes. This hut is quite a good looking building on the outside. It is in a rustic style, which is approved as far as Banff is concerned, and I presume was erected by the department. A building like that would be quite in keeping with the other buildings, and with the addition of a fireplace and plumbing facilities would be all many people would require for either a ski lodge or summer cottage. I can see no reason in the world why these minimum costs could not be brought down and the general appearance of the buildings governed by a regulation providing that they must be something along the lines of this ski hut, or such other specifications as may be approved.
In addition to the other question I asked, therefore, I should like the minister to tell me whether any consideration has been given this question of reducing the minimum cost which governs the buildings on these lots, and also what land is still available and will or may be opened up in the form of leased lots upon which people could build houses in Banff.
Supply-Resources and Development


Robert Henry Winters: With respect to the matter of camp sites, a new area was opened last year at Summit lake which will enable campers to accommodate themselves either by tent or by trailer. Recently sixty low rental cabins were made available for occupancy at from $2 to $2.50 per day for a single person and an additional $1 for each extra person.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Were those cabins or converted army huts?


Robert Henry Winters: Some were converted army huts. As to the housing standards in Banff,
I think it important, and I think the hon. member will agree that it is important, to maintain a standard that will bring about buildings in keeping with the general high standards prevailing in the park. When all things are considered, when we consider the advantages residents of the national parks have, I think it will be agreed that they get good value for their money. The hon. member asked if it would be possible to extend the use of cabins such as the one built for first aid purposes. That was a one-room cabin costing in the vicinity of $2,000. It would be quite unsuitable for permanent occupancy, and I do not think we could contemplate the extension of its use for housing purposes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I indicated that I had in mind the exterior appearance of this first aid hut at Norquay, which is quite in keeping with the park standards. I said that with the addition of a fireplace and plumbing facilities it would meet the needs of many people. Of course it is a big hut, and if it were to be used as a summer cottage, I suppose it would be partitioned inside. A hut of that kind, in keeping with the general appearance of things in Banff, I should think could be constructed for $3,000 at the most, complete with plumbing, and probably for less because the cost of constructing it in Banff would be less than the cost of building it up on Mount Norquay, where it is situated. The minister has really gone around the question in the answer he has given. I should like to know if any consideration has been given to reducing these cost requirements and allowing people to build houses along the lines, architecturally speaking and from the exterior point of view, of this first aid hut at Norquay.


Robert Henry Winters: As I recall it, the hon. member said the minimum amount that could be spent on a house was something in the order of $10,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I said the lowest figure on this list was $6,000, and up to $10,000.


Robert Henry Winters: The minimum permitted
under the regulations is $4,500, which under present conditions would seem to be about
3878	HOUSE OF
Supply-Resources and Development the lowest amount that could be fixed and still maintain the standards required in Banff national park.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The official minimum may be $4,500, but I have not heard of any lots being opened for building purposes on which that was the limit. In this list there are fourteen lots on which the limit is $10,000. On one the limit is $7,500, and on ten the limit is $6,000. That is all there are, and I have not heard of any others being opened up for some considerable time. I wonder if the minister could tell me whether in the last two or three years any lots have been leased upon which a $4,500 house could be built.


Robert Henry Winters: A new subdivision is being opened near the station in Banff. I am not clear as to whether or not there are any houses on existing property now costing $4,500, but such buildings will be permitted on the new lots being opened up in that subdivision.


Douglas Scott Harkness: At what price?


Robert Henry Winters: A minimum of $4,500.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, the minister has been dealing with parks that are already in existence and the administration thereof, but I should like to ask a question or two with respect to a park which has been discussed but which has not yet been created. The minister will know that in the branch of his department which deals with this matter there has been considerable discussion about the Cape Blomidon site in Nova Scotia. Some two years ago before a committee in another place a definite promise was given that this park would be established.
The minister knows this location and I think he realizes the advantages of establishing a park there. The highest tides in the world are to be found in this area. Slightly to the west at Annapolis Royal there is the background of the earliest settlement in North America. There is the history of the expulsion of the Acadians and all the historical background incidental to that particular locality.
I should like to ask what is the policy of the department with respect to establishing a park there? Is it merely temporarily discontinued or will the minister reconsider establishing a park there some time in the immediate future?


Robert Henry Winters: In dealing with this matter perhaps I should state at the outset that I know of no statement by an official of the department to the effect that a national park would be established at Blomidon.


George Clyde Nowlan: In another place.


Robert Henry Winters: By a departmental official?


George Clyde Nowlan: Two years ago.


Robert Henry Winters: It did not come to my attention. At any rate, the matter of establishing a national park at Blomidon has been the subject of discussion, certainly in Nova Scotia, for a considerable time and has also been a matter of investigation. It is a matter in which I am considerably interested because I have spent some very pleasant hours at Blomidon looking over that magnificent scene and from where one can see a number of counties spreading out across the plain below.
The survey by the officials of the department reveals that the area in question does not conform to the standards laid down for national parks. Perhaps I should enumerate some of the salient requirements for a national park. They are as follows:
1.	The area should be representative of the most outstanding type of scenic lands in the province.
2.	The area should be of such a size as to provide a compact terrain adequately to support all forms of indigenous animals through all seasons and within the boundaries of the area.
3.	The area should provide features suitable for recreational development.
4.	It is preferable that the boundaries of the area conform to natural features such as height of land, rivers and shore lines.
5.	Should only embrace as far as possible lands in the natural state.
6.	Should not involve lands primarily suitable for agricultural use.
7.	Should not disturb present settlement which is self-supporting on the lands involved.
8.	Preferably lands still in the ownership of the crown.
9.	Accessibility to centres of population or highways of tourist travel.
10.	No excessive costs in construction of facilities required for the enjoyment of the public.
Dealing with the Cape Blomidon site on the basis of the above, it is an area unique in its natural formation but not entirely representative of the Nova Scotia seacoast and does not contain any other natural features such as inlets, lakes, streams or rolling hills as found typical of the general terrain of Nova Scotia. In so far as scenic attractiveness is concerned, it has only one feature of interest, its rugged precipitous shore line with views overlooking the sea and adjacent lands.

It is apparent from results of farming on lands now under cultivation that most of the land on the peninsula is productive. In the area under survey of about twenty-five square miles there are in the neighbourhood of 125 habitations in small communities such as Scotts Town and scattered farms, stores, schools, churches, sawmills, garages, service stations, etc. To include these lands in their entirety would result in considerable disturbance to people already established and apparently making a living.
To eliminate the lands now under cultivation from a possible park area would reduce land for consideration to about twelve square miles. This area would start from a sharp point at Cape Split and gradually widen at the eastern end at Borden Brook where the width would be approximately two miles. Such an area as described above would be of little use for preservation of wildlife in its natural state. Almost the entire coast line would be precipitous or bold rocky shore and, combined with the extremely high tides, would be of no use to the public for any form of recreation.
The conclusion that one must come to is that the area is not of the calibre usually considered for development as a national park inasmuch as the area is restrictive in size owing to the necessity of not disturbing lands now settled on and it has not the features for the usual all-round development for national parks.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Mr. Chairman, before we
took recess at six o'clock I listened to a debate among the hon. member for Royal, the minister and the hon. member for Saint John-Albert. I was reminded of a story which with your permission I should like to relate to the committee. It is short and of the parlour variety. A noted English professor who had reached the limit in English culture employed a beautiful stenographer. One day his wife came into his studio and found that instead of sitting on her chair the stenographer was sitting on the professor's knee. She said, "John, I am surprised." He said, "I thought you had better English than that; it is I who am surprised; you are astounded."
I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Royal state that the opening of the Fundy park was rather a political opening.


Robert Henry Winters: No, that is not the case. I
thought we disposed of that, Mr. Chairman.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I am not dealing with that.
If the minister will possess his soul in patience I will come to the point.
8, 1951
Supply-Resources and Development


Robert Henry Winters: I just did not want the hon. member to say that it was a political opening because I thought we had disposed of that point.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: We will cancel that. I was going to say that I was pleased to hear the explanation of that meeting and the answer given by the minister to the hon. member for Royal. Where I was astounded was when the hon. member for Saint John-Albert went to work to make the minister's good explanation look as though it should be abolished. However, I really rose to deal with something else.
The minister visits our province quite frequently and I notice that he is booked to be there on June 11. I am sure that will be political because he is to speak in the by-election; that is, if the press report is correct.


Robert Henry Winters: When will the hon. member be there for that purpose?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I am not saying just now.


Robert Henry Winters: Is this the ace in the hole?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: When the hon. member made his previous visit to Charlottetown and the island in general, I was astonished at him on several occasions. As one representative of that dual constituency, I was astonished that I never enjoyed from him even the courtesy of a telephone call. That circumstance made me believe that all his visits there were purely political like the one on June 11. However, that was not anything that was going to embarrass me, because probably the people he was associating with did not require me. I would, however, say this to the minister. There were several things down there in the interests of the constituency as to which, if he had had my information, he would have been saved some considerable trouble that is going to take place in the near future. But we will deal with that matter when we come to another item. What I want to deal with here on this item is historic sites. I want to say a word about an historic site in connection with the Rustico-Cavendish national park. As every hon. member in this committee knows-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I must inform the hon. member for Queens that item
384	does not deal with historic sites but item
385	does.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Is this item not on historic sites?


Louis-René Beaudoin: No, not this one; the next one is.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The heading is "national parks branch".


Louis-René Beaudoin: Branch administration.

Supply-Resources and Development


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: It is national parks and historic sites services, under branch administration, is it not?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: That is the next item.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Item 385 is the one that deals with national parks and historic sites services. Item 384 deals with national parks branch, branch administration. However, if the hon. member is almost finished with his remarks, and if he has unanimous consent, he may carry on.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: With all due respect to the chairman, I cannot yet understand why this is not the first item: branch administration, national parks and historic sites services, the details of which are to be found at page 383. Where are we going to put in national parks? We were just speaking about them a little while ago.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member will not be surprised nor astonished if I tell him that that at page 383 appear the details of the resolution which is item 384, which relates to national parks branch, branch administration, $22,780. If the hon. member turns to page 384, he will see the details of item 385; and that item deals with national parks and historic sites services. But as we are now on item 384, historic sites should not be discussed. As I said, however, if the hon. member has the unanimous consent of the committee-


Robert Henry Winters: Let us carry item 384.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member will not forget that item 383, departmental administration, was carried this afternoon.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Then I take it that this is a misprint, Mr. Chairman, because we find that national parks were discussed this evening. If we leave historic sites, and go on to item 385, if I want to speak on that subject I fear that I will then be ruled out of order because it should have been discussed under item 384.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I can assure the hon. member that if he discusses historic sites under item 385, he will not be ruled out of order.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Will you assure me that, on the next item, we can talk as long as we like on historic sites? I refer to item 385.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Yes.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Before item 384 is passed, may I ask this question? This afternoon the minister told me that a survey had been made. Can he tell me where the surveys were made, or in what areas the surveys were made?


Robert Henry Winters: The areas surveyed were the Salmorder area in the Avalon peninsula; the
[The Deputy Chairman.]
Placentia area in the upper Avalon peninsula between Placentia bay and Fortune bay; and the Bonavista bay area.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Which area is given the preference? Or which area appears to be the best?


Robert Henry Winters: Of those four, the Bonavista area has a great deal to commend it. All areas have many features that would make them desirable for national parks. But of the four, the Bonavista bay area has the most to commend it.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The Bonavista area has the best chance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National parks branch-
385. National parks and historic sites services- administration, operation and maintenance, $3,153,594.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What I was going to speak about, Mr. Chairman, was an historic site in the Cavendish-Rustico national park of Prince Edward Island. Every member of this committee, if he has not forgotten it, knows that associated with and near to the national park is the home and birthplace of our great authoress, Lucy Maude Montgomery Macdonald, one of the greatest .that Canada has produced. This authoress has done more for the advertising of Prince Edward Island in particular and for Canada in general than all the agencies of advertising with anything that has ever been put out at no expense to the province.
Her birthplace is quite near to the national park. At one time, as I understand it-and I raised this matter last year-it was in the possession of the federal parks; then by some kind of a shuffle it gradually came in under the government of the province. Both the federal government and the provincial government had a nickel so close to their eyebrows that they could not see the golden dollars of advertising beyond that this home would bring from the many people that came to Prince Edward Island. Then the provincial government offered this property for sale, and it was not advertised a great deal. Finally the birthplace of this great authoress was sold to a retired farmer, a fine gentleman. It is well that it went into his hands, because I am sure that if the government and the parks branch would communicate with this man they would be assured of getting this property back as a real asset to the national parks. I know that hundreds of people- yes, thousands-who come there are always anxious to come and see the land of Cavendish and also to see the birthplace of the great

authoress. I want the minister to take this matter under consideration and to see if something can be done with regard to getting it back as an asset to the national parks. Today I had several letters from the people in that locality asking me to bring the matter again to the attention of the minister.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I welcome very much and congratulate the department upon its development of the Prince Albert park at lake Waskesiu. At page 387 of the estimates there is an item which shows an increase of potential expenditure of over 100 per cent, namely, $442,125. I should like some explanation of this expenditure. I take it it is a large capital expenditure. Can the minister tell me what it is? My second question has to do with the hard surfacing of the road through that particular park. What is the status of that? I know it was begun; I wonder whether it has been completed.


Robert Henry Winters: I think that this question might more properly be asked under item 386, since it has to do with construction, but perhaps I should say that the increase is for construction of the road in the Prince Albert national park. The large increase is owing to the fact that we are going to do work there that should have been done last year. We did not have a vote for it last year, and we are now going to do the work necessary to finish that road and protect the work that was already done on it.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: There is something there, and perhaps it is historic. I refer to the property of the late Mr. Mackenzie King. Can the minister inform me what has been the disposition' of that particular property? It is a beautiful cottage that Mr. King used on occasion.


Robert Henry Winters: I have been told that just before Mr. King died he transferred that property to some other person.


Mr. Cavers:: Since we are dealing with the matter of national historic sites I think that we in Canada have not given enough attention to preserving and in some cases restoring many of our national historic sites. Our neighbours to the south of us have derived great satisfaction from national and historic sites which portray much of their history and past events and which they keep in a proper state of repair. I would suggest to the historic sites service that some means might be taken to preserve and restore the building which was the birthplace of Sir John A. Macdonald at Cataraqui, Ontario. Sir John was Canada's first prime minister, and a great Canadian. I am told by persons who live in and about the city of Kingston that the building has fallen into disrepair and is 80709-247J
8, 1951	3881
Supply-Resources and Development in a very dilapidated condition at the present time. It would seem to me that it is in the national interest and quite fitting that some effort should be made to restore this site as a national historic site for Canada.


Mr. Herridge:: I heartily subscribe to the sentiments expressed by the previous speaker, because I am always in favour of doing much more than we are doing at the present time to indicate our historic sites. Will the minister explain to the committee just how much money was spent last year in the preservation and marking of historic sites? How does the historic sites and monuments board work? It is a bit of a mystery to many people.


Robert Henry Winters: Last year $110,000 was spent on historic sites, their maintenance and marking. The national historic sites and monuments board assembles periodically in Ottawa, and reviews all sites that have been brought to its attention by interested parties. The board decides whether a site should be marked as being in the national interest; that is, whether or not that site is nationally significant in the development of Canada's history.


Mr. Charlton:: Has the government ever given any consideration to a grant for the upkeep and repair of Chiefswood, just outside of Brantford on the banks of the Grand river, which was the birthplace of Pauline Johnson, the outstanding Canadian poetess?


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Chairman; that has never been brought to the attention of the historic sites and monuments board to my knowledge.


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes, it has. I wrote to the historic sites and monuments board last year regarding it, and never had any word from them.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall look into it. I was not aware of that, Mr. Chairman.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Have the minister and his department settled on any policy in respect to the laying out of and making available sites for private summer residences in Fundy national park? If so, can the minister give me some idea as to the location of the sites, if there is more than one site available, and what restrictions may be imposed upon the buildings and the specifications for the buildings? I can assure him, before he speaks, that not many of us in the province of New Brunswick are able to construct a summer home to the value of $10,000, as was referred to by the hon. member for Calgary East a moment ago.


Robert Henry Winters: An area has been set aside on the shore of the park to the west of the
3882	HOUSE OF
Supply-Resources and Development swimming pool, which will provide for 52 lots, but the regulations have not yet been established as to the type of dwelling that will be permitted to be built there.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I think the minister will agree that the marking of historic sites is very important as an attraction to tourists. I understand that the historic sites board has been meeting in Ottawa fairly recently. Can the minister tell me what sites have been decided on to be marked in Newfoundland? In what way are they to be marked?


Robert Henry Winters: The historic sites and monuments board did meet in Ottawa. They made *certain recommendations. I have not yet received the recommendations, and I have thus not had the opportunity of reviewing them.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The minister does not even know how they are to be marked?


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: In an answer given by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport on May 30 to a question asked by my colleague from St. John's East regarding the demolition of a building at Fort Amherst, as reported at page 3543 of Hansard, he said:
The department has referred' the problem to the national historic sites and monuments board, and will abide by the recommendation and decision of that board.
This is a very historic spot, connected with Lord Amherst, who was commander in chief of the forces that conquered Canada in 1759. The two forts are named after two generals in the British army of that day, and are known as Fort Townsend and Fort Amherst. Is the minister in a position to make any recommendation?


Robert Henry Winters: That particular site did come before the historic sites and monuments board, but the recommendation has not yet reached me. However, pending developments, officials of the department have instructed that demolition work cease.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What is the annual operating and maintenance cost of Prince Edward Island national park? What are the revenues from concessions, rentals and sales, and also from the golf course?


Robert Henry Winters: I wonder if we could have
another question while the answer to that one is being secured.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I should like
to raise a subject that I have mentioned on earlier occasions. I would go back to a suggestion I made before, and use it for the purpose of suggesting a somewhat different approach in respect of the preservation


of some of these historic sites. I notice the minister in speaking of the sites referred to the marking of them. I must confess that in my view in many cases the mere marking of sites has relatively little effect, except for those who are actually living there and who know what the marking is supposed to indicate. People passing through simply see a stone, or some sort of mark, and perhaps know very little about it.
One of the points that could be borne in mind in connection with these historic sites is that many of them provide the possibility of a substantial revenue from any investment that is made. After all, at a time when we are urging economy, it is appropriate to suggest that the expenditures may be more than -carried in many cases by the returns received.
I offer as an illustration the restored fort at Kingston, old Fort Henry, which is a very substantial source of revenue. That of course is administered by the government of Ontario, but it illustrates what I have in mind.
There is another place I should like to mention particularly, and I suggest that the minister himself may have a natural reason for sharing my view as to the importance of that site. I refer to the Bell property at the end of Bras d'Or lakes. I am not referring to it simply because it was the home in, which Alexander Graham Bell lived during bis later years, and actually did carry out some of his last experiments. I am referring to it particularly because at that point is undoubtedly one of the greatest collections of experimental models to be found anywhere on this continent. That is a collection which would be a challenge to the mind of any young Canadian. There, in a wooden building, near the old Bell homestead, is collected a complete set of Bell experimental models, from which the telephone was patented. There are also the early models of the tetrahedral kites which were the forerunner of the first aircraft built anywhere in the British empire at that time. There is there also the actual aircraft which was first flown anywhere within what was then commonly described as the British empire. There is also there a collection of experimental models of air propellers of all types, which show the earliest experiments in that particular field.
There is also a collection of models of gramophones. It is a matter of great historic interest that Edison and Bell were working at the same time on the gramophone, and that Edison just happened to beat Bell out by a matter of a few days or

weeks. There are also models of an extremely interesting device invented by Bell, and which he described as a parafoil, to be used for the purpose of attacking submarines in the first world war. I do not believe they were ever used, but they did constitute an extremely important development and provided basic knowledge for some of the later devices employed in antisubmarine warfare.
I mention this to indicate some of the actual working models which are part of the history of scientific development in this country, and which are distinctly Canadian. I do suggest the time is long overdue for the taking of effective steps to house these extremely valuable models, which could never be replaced, in a fireproof building, so that they may be a centre of attraction and stand as a challenge to the imagination of young Canadians.
Although my association with the province of Nova Scotia is not as direct as that of the minister, I might say that I urged consideration of the project long before I came to this house, because to my mind it was one of the most inspiring and challenging experiences I have had to see collected there in one place this evidence of the great inventive genius which was brought to full development here in Canada.
I believe the minister would be doing something which would bring splendid results if he were to see that these were placed in a collection in a manner somewhat similar to what has been done at Dearborn, in connection with the Edison models, and with a view to having them reproduced in photographic form for distribution in all the schools. -


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I recall that last year in the discussion on the estimates I enjoyed and was greatly impressed by what was said in this connection by the leader of the opposition. Subsequently I spoke to the premier of Nova Scotia, who has close association with that part of the country, and of course has a particularly keen interest in it. He informed me he believed that most of the items to which the leader of the opposition has referred have since been removed from the site in question. He said however that he would bear the matter in mind and look into it. I can assure the leader of the opposition that I shall pursue it further.


George Alexander Drew: I do not wish to extend the discussion, because I know the minister is interested in this subject. What he has said, however, impresses me with the need of taking some positive action. It would be most unfortunate if those models had been removed. Not only were they of immense
8, 1351	3883
Supply-Resources and Development historical value, but they are of immense value to Canada because they were produced in this country as the results of efforts made in this country. If they are being removed, or have been removed, then I suggest that steps should be taken to get them back if possible and have them housed in a proper building which would stand as a shrine for those who are interested in one of the greatest experimental and inventive geniuses this world has produced.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National parks and historic sites services-
386. Construction or acquisition of buildings,, works, land and new equipment, $4,186,704.
Douglas Scott Harkness: What is the program for the hard-surfacing of roads? It is $2,762,000 as against $528,000 last year.


Robert Henry Winters: This will take some searching through the records. There is quite a program of work on roads in national parks. The basis on which we have approached it this year is that a great many roads were graded, last year, and we are taking the steps that are necessary to protect the investment by keeping the roads from deteriorating. This requires us to do a considerable amount of paving this year. If the hon. member would care to reframe his question and ask me about any particular park I can give him the-information. Otherwise I will have to extract from the projects in each park and then consolidate it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not questioning for a moment the necessity of the surfacing. As a matter of fact I am only too delighted it is going to be done.


Robert Henry Winters: I know.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no doubt there were many roads in the national parks which were getting into bad shape and which needed resurfacing quite badly. I will just ask one-specific question. Does this include the surfacing of the road from Banff down to-Radium?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, it does, a distance of sixty-six miles.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then that is not the entire distance. That is just the section from the road junction at Castle mountain, now Eisenhower mountain, to Radium.


Robert Henry Winters: From Eisenhower junction toi Radium.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What about the road from Banff to the eastern limits of the park? Is any resurfacing going to take place there this year?


Robert Henry Winters: Just repair work on that; there is no resurfacing program.
3884	HOUSE OF
Supply-Resources and Development


Douglas Scott Harkness: There are sections which need quite a bit of repair work, and I would hope that that would be done. Under construction of buildings, is there anything in this vote of $294,000 for the construction of low rental cabins that I was talking about earlier?


Robert Henry Winters: No, there is not.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would recommend that the minister have that included in his estimates for next year because it is one of the great needs of the parks. There is no question about that. What has been done so far has not even begun to meet the need for low rental cabins in the national parks. They have not really scratched the surface.


Robert Henry Winters: The matter is being borne in mind.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As to the item of construction of roads, bridges and trails, is there anything provided for the construction of hiking trails in Banff national park, which could also be used in the winter as ski trails?


Robert Henry Winters: In this year's estimates, and in view of circumstances with which all hon. members are familiar, we are simply undertaking a program of maintenance of existing trails.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The latter statement is manifestly wrong because this vote of $399,000 is for the construction of roads, bridges and trails. Therefore the matter of maintenance is not the only thing concerned. There is going to be nearly $400,000 spent on construction. The question of building hiking and ski trails is one which has also been brought up every year, I think, for the past six or seven years, and very little has ever been done about it. It is one of the things which would enable a lot of people who enjoy what is called cross-country skiing to do a great deal more along that line. The trails could also be used in the summertime for hiking. It has been represented to the department year after year that a great need would be filled, particularly as far as young people are concerned who cannot afford' an expensive holiday, if they could go into the park and hike along these trails in the summer or ski along them in the winter. The cost would be comparatively small. It is a cheap operation and would only require a certain amount of clearing. It does not require a lot of grading and so on that is necessary in the building of a road. At the same time if log cabins or shacks, whatever you want to call them, were constructed at intervals along these trails people could use them for places in which to eat a meal, or if they had their blankets they could stay there overnight.


An hon. Member:: Spend more money.


Mr. Johnston:: I should like to ask the minister whether oiling of the roads is included in this vote.


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


Charles Edward Johnston: How much is spent on oiling roads and to whom is the contract let? I am referring particularly to Banff.


Robert Henry Winters: The oil is purchased on a tender basis, the contract going to the lowest tenderer, and the work is done by day labour.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is it in all cases let to the lowest bidder, and who has the contract or contracts for the oiling of the Banff park roads?


Robert Henry Winters: To my knowledge, in all cases the contracts are awarded to the lowest tenderer. Speaking from memory, the officials of the department say they believe that Imperial Oil received the contract for oil in Banff park.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is it not true that Brewsters do a lot of that oiling, or do they get it as a subcontract?


Robert Henry Winters: We have no knowledge of any such arrangement.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: There is an item in the details of $338,500 for Fundy park. Would the minister give us some information as to approximately how much of this money will be used this year to pay for hard surfacing of roads within the park, and whether the building of any additional cabins for tourists ini the present concession area is contemplated? While I am on that subject, I should like to congratulate the minister and the officers of the department on the splendid type of accommodation they have provided there for tourists. The reason why I am interested in knowing whether or not any additional cabins will be constructed is that I know the officials of the park must anticipate an increase in the demand for this type of accommodation this summer. They were highly popular during the last tourist season, and I think they will be even more popular during the coming season.


Robert Henry Winters: It is not planned this year to add to the twenty-nine cabins already available in the park. The amount of money for hard surfacing in Fundy park this year is $200,000.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: How many miles of hard surfacing does the department plan to complete this year?


Robert Henry Winters: We plan to complete 12-5 miles.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Looking at the details on page 387, I see that for construction or

acquisition and so forth in national parks there is roughly $400,000 for Banff, $569,000 for Jasper and $831,000 for Kootenay. Can the minister tell us what these respective sums are for? Apparently they are all for new building of some kind.


Robert Henry Winters: Those large items of expenditure are for the road programs in the three parks.


Douglas Scott Harkness: They are all for roads?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


Charles Edward Johnston: Referring back to the question I asked a moment ago, the minister said a contract was let to Imperial Oil for the oiling. I then asked if there was any subletting of contracts, and I do not recall that the minister answered that question.


Robert Henry Winters: I thought I had answered it. I said we had no knowledge or recollection of any such arrangement.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Last year I asked the minister the cost of constructing the golf course at Fundy park, and at that time he told me that construction was not completed. If he has the figure now I should like to have it. I should like to know also the cost of construction of the superintendent's house at' Fundy park.


Robert Henry Winters: We do not have that information available this evening, but I will be very glad to send it to the hon. member for Royal at an early date, if that is satisfactory.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You should take a leaf out of the book of the Minister of Agriculture. He always has an answer.


Robert Henry Winters: I had an answer, but not the one the hon. member wanted.


Percy Chapman Black: I should like some information with respect to the acquisition of cars and trucks, for which an amount of $90,200 is provided this year. I should like to know how that is distributed. I am especially interested in this because a return was brought down this session showing that for the Cape Breton national park one truck was acquired in 1946 and fourteen more have been acquired since that time, making a total of fifteen. I would ask the minister if the purchase of fifteen trucks for the Cape Breton national park in the last four years is justified. In view of the fact that the construction work has been done on a contract basis it seems to me this is a large number of motor vehicles for the department to have there. I should like to know, too, how much of the $90,200 in the estimates for this purpose this year will be assigned to Cape Breton national park.
Supply-Resources and Development


William Joseph Browne: While the minister is looking up that information I wonder if I might make a personal explanation in reference to the incident which occurred yesterday and which caused Your Honour some inconvenience. When we were dealing with item 427 I made reference to a former debate on the National Housing Act and charged that I had been prevented by you from speaking on a certain aspect of the matter. I was absent from the house when Your Honour made a statement dealing with the incident in detail and quoting extensively from Hansard of that time. I have read your statement and find that my assertion was incorrect. It was made inadvertently and without any intention of reflecting upon your impartiality, which I hold in high esteem. Accordingly I wish to express my sincere regret for any annoyance and inconvenience I may have caused you, and would like to withdraw the assertion I made.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I should perhaps say to the hon. member that he has taken the whole incident with good grace, and I am very happy it has been concluded in this way.


Robert Henry Winters: In reply to the question of the hon. member for Cumberland, funds are earmarked this year for one jeep for Cape Breton national park. The records of the departmental officials indicate that about five vehicles were purchased last year for Cape Breton national park as replacements.


Percy Chapman Black: And how many have been assigned to that park, under the machinery they have for administering it? What is the total?


Robert Henry Winters: May I send the hon. member that information?


Percy Chapman Black: I would prefer to have it on Hansard. There is more information I would like from the minister with respect to this park. It would appear from a return brought down on March 19 that three contracts for highway and bridge construction have been given to one firm on a cost plus fixed fee basis. In 1949 the work was given the Fundy Construction Company, and the total expenditure was $413,101. For the following year, 1950, the expenditure was $467,434 and for 1951 the amount is $803,992. The total for the three years, if I have added it correctly, is $1,684,527. All this work has been awarded on the basis of cost plus fixed fee. Replies to questions asked at that time do not indicate the basis of the fixed fee. A certain amount of machinery and equipment was also rented. I would1 like to know how much equipment was rented and on what basis, and whether the rental

Supply-Resources and Development of equipment is covered by the fixed fee. Can the minister give the committee that information? All this work was given to one contractor, the Fundy Construction Company.


Robert Henry Winters: The basis of the contract is cost plus a fixed fee, as the hon. member has said, but that is arrived at in this way. The department calls for tenders to be submitted on the basis of rates for the rental of the equipment involved, plus their figure for the fixed fee. The contract is awarded to the contractor who submits the over-all arrangement that gives the best rental figure for the equipment involved and the lowest fixed fee. It is comparative and competitive.


Percy Chapman Black: Would the minister state what was the fixed fee and what were the various tenders submitted to the department?


Robert Henry Winters: For which year?


Percy Chapman Black: For the three years. I would like to have all the information. I understood the minister to say that this contract was let to the Fundy Construction Company because they submitted the lowest fixed fee. I would like to know what that fixed fee was for each of the three years.


Robert Henry Winters: We do not have that information available this evening, but I would be glad to give the hon. member any information he wishes with respect to any contract. I understand most of it is available in the public accounts, but I would be glad to give it to the hon. member privately, or make a return of it, or any way he wishes.


Percy Chapman Black: I should like to have the information and I do not want it given privately because many people in Cape Breton are interested in this matter. I have been asking for the information and I am rather disappointed that I cannot secure it. I should like to know what equipment was rented by the department, and on what basis.
1 should like to know how much was paid for each vehicle and the total amount paid for each piece of equipment during the different seasons.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the item carry?


Percy Chapman Black: Not until we get some information.


Robert Henry Winters: We have the information of course, but it is not before me at the moment.
I can certainly get it for the hon. member and I shall be glad to give it to him, either now or at a later date.


Percy Chapman Black: I prefer to have it now. However, I want to make it convenient for the minister. Unless there is great trouble in securing it, I should like to have it now.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: While the information is being sought I should like to direct the minister's attention to something I started to bring up this afternoon on another item but apparently I was out of order. I was referring to a post office for the Fundy national park. There is a post office just outside the park at Alma. They would prefer to have a new post office in Alma but-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: The self-appointed deputy chairman has called me to order, but I do not hear the chairman calling me to order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to a point of order. Post offices are not under the Minister of Resources and Development.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I think the point of order is well taken; that matter should be referred to the Postmaster General.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: I do not question Your Honour's decision or the decision of the self-appointed chairman, but I would like to point out that there is an item now before the committee having to do with the construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment for national parks and historic sites services. In Fundy national park the Department of Resources and Development has constructed a number of buildings, including a home for the superintendent, an administration building, a community centre, a number of tourist cabins, a clubhouse, and several other pieces of construction. One of these buildings was rented or loaned to the provincial government for its school of arts and handicrafts.
I simply want to make the recommendation that the Department of Resources and Development make available or lend to the Department of Public Works or the Post Office Department a building which could be used as a post office. May I continue, Your Honour?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: That is in order.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: I am simply suggesting that there be made available a building that would blend in with the type of building already there so that proper postal facilities may be provided for the tourists who come there to visit Fundy national park each summer. This afternoon the hon. member for Royal said: that I had nothing to do with Fundy national park, but I want to assure you that I am very much interested in it. A number of representations have been made to me urging that proper postal facilities be made available for tourists. As I stated, there is a post office outside the park but it is located in a small building not adapted to use by a large number of people. They tell me

that the roof leaks and'the amount of rental that is paid to the owner is not sufficient to permit him to make capital repairs. Therefore I urge the Minister of Resources and Development to make some type of building available, or to persuaae ms colleagues and good friends, the Minister of Public Works and the Postmaster General, to see that proper facilities are made available for the people of that locality and the many tourists who visit there.


Percy Chapman Black: May I have the information I asked for?


Robert Henry Winters: I will get the information for the hon. member.


Percy Chapman Black: I would like the minister to arrange to have it put on Hansard following my inquiry. I would like to ask the minister what work is to be done under this item covering construction or acquisition of buildings. I notice in the details regarding Cape Breton Highlands park that $240,865 is in the estimates for the current year, which is a considerable reduction from the previous year. What is proposed to be done with this appropriation? In addition to that, there is an item covering maintenance amounting to $140,564.


Robert Henry Winters: Under acquisition and construction of buildings and works the following items are being arranged for:
Spreading crushed gravel from mile 36 to
Pleasant Bay on Cabot Trail	 $ 50,000
Completion of bridges at Clyburn and
Effie's Brooks	 25,000
Construction of oil shed at park headquarters	   1,000
Construction	of three picnic shelters	 1,500
Construction of two-car garage for
R.C.M.P	 2,000
Construction of parking area at golf clubhouse	   1,000
Construction of forest telephone to Mt.
Treney fire lookout tower five miles
tree line	 l.ooo
Construction of three toilets, three at western entrance and one at Lone Shieling ..	450
Landscaping grounds and thinning of trees
at bungalow camp	, , ,, .... 1,000
Construction of three tool caches for fire
fighting equipment	 500
Construction of ten miles of fire trail..	3,600
Development of camp grounds at Cheticamp river and Big Intervale	 3,000
Construction of central building for low rental tourist accommodation		20,000
Construction of a sea wall and reconstruction of highway north of Presqu'ile and replacement of native timber cribs with steel cribs where necessary, between Corney Brook and the Rigwash	 100,000


Percy Chapman Black: How does the department intend to carry out work such as the surfacing of the road?
Supply-Resources and Development


Robert Henry Winters: For the large projects we will call for tenders and issue contracts, while the smaller work will be done by the maintenance staff of the park.


Percy Chapman Black: Will it be done on a contract price basis or, as in the last three years, on a cost-plus basis?


Robert Henry Winters: We will make the best
arrangement we can. Considering the nature of the work contemplated, I think we will be able to get a fixed contract.


Percy Chapman Black: Have any contracts been let up to the present for any of this $240,000?


Robert Henry Winters: No.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I want to ask one question.
I see an amount for the Prince Edward Island park of $127,600. Is that for new equipment, new buildings or what? What are the details of that?


Robert Henry Winters: Of that, $110,000 is for hard surfacing and the remainder is for small maintenance jobs.


Percy Chapman Black: In Cape Breton
Highlands park how much mileage of the highway has been surfaced and what mileage has been paved up to the present time? I should like to know the cost per mile.


Robert Henry Winters: There has been none paved
to date. About 70 miles have been gravelsurfaced.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Whereabouts in the park is that hard surfacing and wall to be built? In Dalvey, Cavendish, Rustico or where?


Robert Henry Winters: The project is the hard
surfacing of the Dalvey-Stanhope road for approximately 4-5 miles.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian! wildlife service-
389.	Wildlife resources conservation and development, including administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act-administration, operation and maintenance, $311,092.
Gordon Francis Higgins: I note that there is a
decrease of $2,135. I presume that is because there would be no need for supervision of the sea birds in Newfoundland this year. Seriously, I want to thank the minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the co-operation they have given in the matter of a request for the relaxation of the Migratory Birds Convention Act. I feel that when they have made this investigation that they expect to make in the next three years they will find ample evidence that there is no necessity for imposing any restrictions in the future,

Supply-Resources and Development having regard to the reproduction of the birds. In view of the fact that we have been rather successful in the request to the minister in this connection, may I ask him to give consideration, if he is not already doing so, to the introduction of red deer to the province. I think they might well be implementing the living standard of the people and they would also be quite a great tourist attraction. I do not know whether the minister has had the proposal put to him already, but I think it is well worthy of his consideration.


Robert Henry Winters: The introduction of red deer to Newfoundland would be something to be initiated by the province. We would of course be glad to co-operate with them. The maintenance and care of deer in the province of Newfoundland would be the responsibility of the province of Newfoundland.


Gordon Francis Higgins: But the minister would be
prepared to co-operate.


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. Catherwood:: Mr. Chairman, you did
not call item "S" under 388. Will you permit a question under that item?


Robert Henry Winters: That "S" just means that
it is statutory.


A. Earl Catherwood: I was just going to ask
the minister a question.
National parks branch-
388.	(S) National battlefields commission (chap. 57, statutes of 1908, as amended), $100,000.


A. Earl Catherwood: I wonder if the minister would indicate the nature of the expenditure under this item, and also where the $100,000 statutory amount will be expended? Would he also explain what is the relation between this item and the one under the battlefields memorials in the national defence estimates? Is there any connection between those two expenditures?


Robert Henry Winters: This is a vote that is administered by the national battlefields commission under the national battlefields act, which is the responsibility of the Minister of Resources and Development. The vote is made available to the national battlefields commission in Quebec which is responsible for the administration of the national battlefield area in Quebec. The bulk of the money is spent on maintenance operations. Some of it, of course, is spent on administration, salary of permanent personnel and all the normal expenses that go into operating that historic battlefield. It applies only to the Quebec battlefield.
(Mr. Higgins.]

National parks branch-
390.	National museum of Canada-administration, operation and maintenance, $228,669.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is the item dealing with the national museum, which also was dealt with in the Massey report. I have only skimmed through that report lightly but the impression I gained was that it had given the government and preceding governments somewhat of a rocket over the national museum and the comparative neglect of it. I do not know what the government has in mind. I note that the expenditure last year was up considerably over that of 1949-50 and that it is down again this year. I think there is no doubt that our national museum has been neglected. The number of specimens that are in it is far too great for the accommodation that can be provided for them. They cannot be displayed properly, and little attention really has been paid to preserving in the museum a great deal of material of historic and other interest which it would be well worth our while in Canada to preserve.
I should like to ask the minister to tell us what his department proposes to do with regard to the national museum, and whether they have in mind any improvements whatever. I am prompted to ask that question particularly because, on looking over the details at pages 390 and 391, I do not see a single dollar in the estimates for the acquisition of new specimens of any kind. Of course they have far more specimens now than they can display properly. But the point is that more material should be added to that museum constantly. There is a great deal of material-and I am thinking particularly of a great deal of Indian material in western Canada-which is rapidly disappearing; and if steps are not taken to secure some of this material in the near future, it will be completely unavailable. A great deal of it has been purchased by private citizens in the United States, has been taken across there, and is used. In some cases it has been donated to museums there and in other cases it is in private hands. But in any event, a great deal of historic material of that nature has rapidly been disappearing and we shall soon be at the point where it will be completely unobtainable. I think it is well past time when steps should have been taken to secure distinctive collections of material-and that is just one example- from various parts of Canada and to house them properly in the national museum so that they will be available for our citizens more or less for ail time to come.


Robert Henry Winters: I agree, of course, with a great deal of what the hon. member has

said. The committee may recall that when this item was before hon. members last year, I said I thought that the time had come to pay more attention to the development of the national museum. But in the meantime circumstances developed that made it necessary for all of us to devote most of our energies and what funds are available to the development of the defence program. The vote therefore was cut back as were all votes of this nature.
With respect to the acquisition of specimens, there is no designation set up for that purpose. But there are parties of various types of specialists-botanists, anthropologists, zoologists and so on-in the field who collect a wide variety of specimens and make them available for the general public in the national museum.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In my remarks I had reference not to specimens of a botanical nature but rather to specimens of historic interest, folk lore interest, native cultural interest and so on. The acquisition of those things in most cases requires a certain amount of money. These things have quite an intrinsic value apart from their value as museum pieces, and the people who have them are not going to part with them for nothing in most instances, particularly the specimens which are still left in the hands of our native population.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: To what extent does the minister have jurisdiction over the art gallery which is located in the national museum building?


Robert Henry Winters: None, Mr. Chairman; I have no jurisdiction over it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Engineering and water resources branch-
391.	Branch administration, $65,410.
Gordon Francis Higgins: Has the minister or his department had a request for a survey of water powers in the province of Newfoundland? If so, what has happened about it?


Robert Henry Winters: We have had a request, Mr. Chairman, and we are conducting stream measurements in Newfoundland at the present time.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Has there not been an outside commercial corporation employed to do that work as well? Does the minister know of that? Was there any necessity for such employment?


Robert Henry Winters: I cannot answer that, Mr. Chairman. There has been no outside commercial company employed by this department.
Supply-Resources and Development


Gordon Francis Higgins: I take it that the department would have been prepared to complete a full survey of water power if given the time.


Robert Henry Winters: The function of this water
resources division in the field is to make stream measurements, including flow data, and accumulate information which will be available generally to anybody who is interested, and who might be concerned with the power potentialities or any other aspects of stream flow.


Gordon Francis Higgins: How far has the department proceeded with the matter?


Robert Henry Winters: We have seven stations set up now and by the end of this summer there should be ten gauging stations in operation.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Has the minister the locations?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can the minister tell me what this phrase means: "Including grant of $350 to the international executive council, world power conference"?


Robert Henry Winters: The item to which the hon. member refers is a membership in the international executive council of the world power conference. It is just the amount to cover the membership fee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: While the minister is answering that question can he tell us what the next item in the details is for: "Membership fee, $77"? What do we belong to that we pay that sum of money for?


Robert Henry Winters: I shall have to get that information. This is another of these items on which I shall have to get the information. I refer to the location of the gauging stations on these streams.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Would the minister know if the Hamilton river in Labrador has been surveyed?


Robert Henry Winters: There will be one in there this year.


Gordon Francis Higgins: There is none there yet?


Robert Henry Winters: No.


George Alexander Drew: In view of the fact that the minister has explained the department is making certain hydrographic surveys in Newfoundland, has he been consulted in regard to the provisions of the bill that is now before the legislature of Newfoundland, known as an act to incorporate the Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation Limited?


Robert Henry Winters: No, I have not been consulted.


George Alexander Drew: Is the minister aware of the provisions of the bill under which certain

Supply-Resources and Development arrangements are made in regard to the development of water power in Newfoundland?


Robert Henry Winters: I have not read the bill and I am not aware of its detailed provisions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Water resources division-
Water resources division, including the administration of the dominion water power and irrigation acts, and including grant of $350 to the international executive council, world power conference-
392.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $585,926.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister inform
us now as to what we have joined?


Robert Henry Winters: What is that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister tell us
what it is we are spending $77 on? It comes under the item that we now have before us, item 392.


Robert Henry Winters: We are on item 391.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: We are on item 392.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are on item 392 and
the amount of $77 appears in the details about half way down the page.


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is that, the rotary
club, the Liberal association or what?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: A C.C.F. union. That is
union dues.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are they deductible for
income tax purposes?


Robert Henry Winters: It is membership fees for
people in the waterway resources division in the various engineering associations, the engineering institute and the professional institutes of engineers, and the like.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
394. To provide for studies and surveys of the Columbia river watershed in Canada, $381,095.
Douglas Scott Harkness: This item is to provide
for studies and surveys of the Columbia river watershed in Canada. The people concerned are engineers and so forth. I see down below there is the sum of $79,000 for topographical surveys and $26,000 for bathymetric surveys, and $43,000 for drilling investigations. Then there is an item of $26,000 for other professional and special services. I wonder why it is that all these surveys are separate from the cost of the various engineers, technical officers and so


on, who are part of the department. Has this been done by means of extra contracts, or what is the explanation?


Robert Henry Winters: Although this department
votes money, the surveys are carried out by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, or the Department of Public Works,


Douglas Scott Harkness: The money is paid to the
other departments, do you mean?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is that done on a contract
basis, or do you just come to a private deal?


Robert Henry Winters: The other departments do
it at cost for us, and we transfer the funds to them to carry out the work.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Do I understand that on
this item we must ask our questions of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys?


Robert Henry Winters: No. We will answer questions with respect to administration so far as we are able to and, so far as possible, we will answer with regard to details of work. However, I am sure my colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys will give all that information, if he is asked, when his estimates are being considered.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This item is of great interest to British Columbia, and particularly my constituency. How long will it be before the studies will be completed, and at what points has drilling been undertaken on the Columbia with the idea of finding foundations for dam sites? What success has there been in drilling at these various points?


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Chairman, I had that information here until about ten minutes ago, but seeing that time was running out I sent it back to my office. However, I shall be pleased to supply it when my estimates are before the committee.


Robert Henry Winters: I can add that we contemplate the completion of the survey will take another two years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Engineering and water resources branch-
395. To provide for studies and surveys of the Red river basin in Canada, $182,000.
William Scottie Bryce: Would the minister tell us what has been done by way of work on the Red river. Is this being accomplished by the two governments, or only by ourselves? Is the American government co-operating with us in the work? I wonder if the minister

would tell us what is going on, so that the people in Winnipeg will know what is taking place.


Robert Henry Winters: A considerable amount of work has been undertaken by this department on its own direct account and in cooperation with other departments to accumulate data in the Red river valley, and the other streams and rivers that contributed to the disastrous flooding a year ago.
We have acquired a staff in Winnipeg under the direction of Mr. G. L. MacKenzie, who is on loan to us. He is chief engineer of the prairie farm rehabilitation administration. Temporary space was obtained in the district engineer's office at Winnipeg, and later permanent accommodation was obtained from the provincial government at 221 Osborne street north. Recruiting of staff proceeded as need arose, and at the present time Mr. MacKenzie has a staff under him of sixteen, all but three of whom are engineering or technical personnel.
The work initiated and virtually complete as at this date includes the hydrographic survey of the Red river from Winnipeg to the international boundary and north from Winnipeg to lake Winnipeg. Analysis of hydrometric and meteorological data, flood records, river slopes and aerial photographs was carried on concurrently. The assistance of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys was obtained to complete precise levelling operations, and this department also conducted surveys to develop the controls in the valley as a further step to contouring the area. The full co-operation of the greater Winnipeg dyking board, the Department of Public Works, the prairie farm rehabilitation administration and the United States geological survey has been obtained. In this connection Mr. MacKenzie and two members of his staff visited the corps of engineers office at St. Paul and were able to have very useful technical discussions so that the methods of carrying out hydraulic studies and other details would be correlated. At this conference it was determined that the improvement in the United States section of the basin would create no material change in the river regimen within the reasonable future.
The actual survey work has consisted in taking cross-sections of the river generally at 1,000-foot intervals with lesser intervals being used at some of the sharp bends. Extra sections were taken above and below all bridges. These cross-sections consist of taking soundings in the river at 20-foot intervals and the topography of the banks for a distance of 100 to 500 feet beyond the top of the
Supply-Resources and Development banks on both sides of the river. Information is also being obtained as to the nature of the bed of the river by means of probings. Certain cross-section information between Emerson and Morris was already available in the office of the district engineer, water resources division, at Winnipeg.
Information was secured regarding the hydraulic gradient of both the Red and Assiniboine rivers for various stages of water during this spring. Staff gauges were accordingly placed by Mr. MacKenzie's staff throughout the Red river from Emerson to lake Winnipeg and up the Assiniboine river to Headingly. The P.F.R.A. also established a number of gauges on the Assiniboine river from Headingly upstream.
Once the necessary surveys are complete, maps will be drawn on a scale of 600 feet to 1 inch with an accompanying profile on a horizontal scale of 1,000 feet to 1 inch, and most of the work during the coming year will consist in the preparation of plans and profiles from the information which has been gathered. The maintenance of one or two survey parties throughout most of the summer will be necessary to obtain additional data as the need for this information arises. Office studies will include investigation of possible river channel improvements, protective works, flood diversion schemes, storage or retardation possibilities, hydraulic elements and determinations of costs and benefits of various schemes or combinations of schemes. The prairie farm rehabilitation administration will be doing most of the survey work on the Assiniboine river. The dyking board has completed the Assiniboine river surveys within the city of Winnipeg. I think the danger is over for this spring.


William Scottie Bryce: I thank the minister for his explanation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

Alphonse Fournier: Monday we will take up Bill No. 322, respecting the Canada post office. Then we will move to go into supply, and call four or five departments; and proceed with the estimates of fisheries.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are you not
going to go on with the Income Tax Act this year?


Percy Chapman Black: Might I ask the minister what departments he proposes calling on Monday?

Supply-Resources and Development Mr. Fournier (Hull): I can give the hon. member a list. There are nine departments that have not been called, and subject to a change of mind I believe I would call defence production, trade and commerce, veterans affairs, post office, and citizenship and immigration.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:
DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT National parks branch-
383.	Departmental administration, $381,223.
384.	Branch administration, $22,780.
National parks and historic sites services-
385.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $3,153,594.
386.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $4,186,704.
387.	Grant to the Jack Miner migratory bird foundation, $5,000.
388.	Grant in aid of the development of tne international peace garden in Manitoba, $15,000.
Canadian wildlife service-
389.	Wildlife resources conservation and development, including administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act-administration, operation and maintenance, $311,092.
National Museum of Canada-
390.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $228,669.
Engineering and water resources branch-
391.	Branch administration, $65,410.
Water resources division-
Water resources division, including the administration of the dominion water power and irrigation acts, and including grant of $350 to the international executive council, world power conference-
392.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $585,926.
393.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $50,995.
394.	To provide for studies and surveys of the Columbia river watershed in Canada, $381,095.
395.	To provide for studies and surveys of the Red river basin in Canada, $182,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 11, 1951